Story 1: Judge John Koeltl in Manhattan United States District Court for The Southern District Permanently Dismisses Frivolous Democratic Party Lawsuit Against Trump’s Campaign Alleging Conspiracy with Russian Government and Wikileaks Without Merit — Trump Vindicated — Videos —

Trump says The Witch Hunt Ends after judge dismisses DNC lawsuit

BREAKING: Judge tosses DNC suit against Trump 2016, WikiLeaks

U.S. District Judge (SDNY) John G. Koeltl held that the DNC raised a “number of connections and communications between the defendants and with people loosely connected” to Russia, but said that “at no point does the DNC allege any facts in the Second Amended Complaint to show that any of the defendants — other than the Russian Federation — participated in the theft of the DNC’s

Democrats’ Lawsuit Alleging Trump-Russia Conspiracy Is Dismissed

Democrats’ Lawsuit Alleging Trump-Russia Conspiracy Is Dismissed

U.S. judge tosses Democratic Party lawsuit against Trump campaign, Russia over election

July 30 (Reuters) – A U.S. judge on Tuesday dismissed a Democratic Party lawsuit arguing that the Russian government, President Donald Trump´s campaign and WikiLeaks carried out a conspiracy to influence the 2016 U.S. election.

U.S. District Judge John Koeltl in Manhattan said he could not hear the claims against Russia, which were the focus of the case, because of a legal doctrine called sovereign immunity that shields foreign governments from litigation in the United States.

“The remedies for hostile actions by foreign governments are state actions, including sanctions imposed by the executive and legislative branches of government,” Koeltl’s written opinion said.

Koeltl also said holding WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign liable for dissemination of hacked emails would infringe on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Democratic National Committee’s computer systems were hacked during the campaign and WikiLeaks published party emails.

Trump said on Twitter that the ruling was “yet another total &amp; complete … vindication &amp; exoneration” of him and his campaign, similar language he used in response to former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on his investigation into Russian election interference.

A lawyer for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday’s decision.

The DNC said in its lawsuit that top officials in Trump’s campaign conspired with the Russian government and its military spy agency to hurt Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and tilt the election to Trump. Moscow denies interfering in the election.

The lawsuit said that Trump´s campaign “gleefully welcomed Russia´s help” in the 2016 election and accuses it of being a “racketeering enterprise” that worked in tandem with Moscow.

“During the 2016 presidential campaign, Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy and it found a willing and active partner in Donald Trump´s campaign,” DNC chair Tom Perez said at the time the lawsuit was filed. “This constituted an act of unprecedented treachery.”

The Mueller report released in April detailed numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians but found insufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy with Russia to sway the election.

The Trump campaign argued in court filings that Mueller’s report made clear that the DNC lawsuit was “frivolous” and that the DNC should be sanctioned for refusing to drop the case.

Koeltl denied the request, saying the case was “not so objectively unreasonable as to warrant the imposition of sanctions.” (Reporting by Jan Wolfe; editing by Grant McCool)

Judge Dismisses Democrats’ Suit Against Russia, Trump Campaign

A federal judge in Manhattan has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee against Russia, the Trump campaign, WikiLeaks and others, ruling the committee’s allegations of a wide-ranging conspiracy to interfere in the 2016 election were “moot or without merit.”

The lawsuit, filed in April 2018, alleged the defendants conspired to hack into the DNC’s computer network and strategically leak stolen information to undermine Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and improve Donald Trump’s odds of winning the election.

The defendants in the lawsuit included the Russian federation and the country’s military intelligence agency; WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange; the Trump campaign and its onetime chairman, Paul Manafort; Mr. Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr., his son-in-law Jared Kushner and his longtime adviser Roger Stone, as well as others involved in the campaign.

In a written opinion issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl held that Russia—which he said is ”the primary wrongdoer in this alleged criminal enterprise”—cannot be sued in U.S. courts for government actions, under federal law governing sovereign immunity.

“The remedies for hostile actions by foreign governments are state actions, including sanctions imposed by the executive and legislative branches of government,” Judge Koeltl wrote.

As for the other defendants, who are accused of disseminating the stolen materials, Judge Koeltl said the First Amendment protects such activities, “the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest,” so long as they didn’t participate in wrongdoing to obtain them.

Adrienne E. Watson, deputy communications director for the DNC, said the committee was still reviewing the decision. “At first glance, this opinion raises serious concerns about our protections from foreign election interference and the theft of private property to advance the interests of our enemies.”

In a tweet, President Trump called the ruling “yet another total & complete…vindication & exoneration from the Russian, WikiLeaks and every other form of HOAX perpetrated by the DNC, Radical Democrats and others.”

In addition to having the lawsuit dismissed, the Trump campaign also sought to have the DNC and its lawyers sanctioned. Judge Koeltl denied that bid Tuesday.

The lawsuit’s allegations overlapped with concerns addressed by former special counsel Robert Mueller, who in April released a 448-page report detailing efforts by Russia to interfere in the 2016 election and its repeated contacts with Trump campaign officials, including the hacking of the DNC computer network.

While Mr. Mueller didn’t establish that the Trump campaign had knowingly conspired with the Russians, his office had previously charged dozens of Russian entities and individuals in connection with those alleged efforts. In light of the report, the Trump campaign had argued the DNC’s claims in the New York lawsuit were frivolous, while the DNC argued that the bar for criminal charges is higher than standards of proof in civil proceedings.

Mr. Mueller’s team secured the convictions of five Trump advisers, several of whom had lied to investigators about their contacts with Russian officials, including Mr. Manafort. Mr. Stone has pleaded not guilty to charges that he tried to obstruct a congressional inquiry into Russian interference.

Judge Koeltl’s ruling addressed a central concern about press freedoms raised in another case about WikiLeaks. In May, the U.S. Justice Department charged Mr. Assange with violating the Espionage Act for an alleged effort to obtain and publish classified information about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. U.S. authorities are seeking to have Mr. Assange extradited from the U.K., where he was arrested in April.

Population pyramids: Powerful predictors of the future – Kim Preshoff

Which Countries Have Shrinking Populations?

Is the World Running Out of Children? (And Sperm??)

History and its unspoken secrets have an impact on individuals, families and society. Part of China’s history was the single child policy. Psychotherapist, Yijia Yan, explains how secrets linked to the single child policy are affecting Chinese families, parents, and children today. As a psychotherapist and as a mother of two children, Kate’s professional activities are concentrated around enhancing knowledge about and providing professional support for children’s emotional and behavioral development in China. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community.

The unintended consequences of China’s One Child Policy

One Child Policy Documentary

Video: Millions of single Chinese men desperately seeking a wife

Why China Ended its One-Child Policy

China encourages women to have more children

Object Lessons from the One-Child Policy | Mei Fong | TEDxPasadena

Why Are Millions of Chinese Kids Parenting Themselves?

Painful legacy of China’s one child policy – BBC News

Two Child Policy – China

China’s northeastern province of Liaoning is planning to loosen birth restrictions and allow some couples to have a third child in a bid to improve dwindling fertility rates and stop its workforce from declining.

China introduced a controversial “one-child policy” in 1978, but relaxed restrictions in 2016 to allow all couples to have two children as it tried to rebalance its rapidly ageing population.

However, experts have called for more radical measures, with birth rates still in decline and China’s health services and pension funds expected to come under increasing strain as the number of elderly people increases.

Liaoning’s provincial government said on its website on Tuesday that revising family planning regulations was one of its major priorities for 2019 after previous adjustments failed to arrest the decline in its population.

The rustbelt province has drafted new regulations aimed at improving education, housing and social security and providing more financial support for families choosing to have two children. It will also allow some couples living in “border areas” to have a third child.

While the central government imposes family planning rules nationwide through thousands of family planning offices, it gives leeway to some regions. Ethnic minorities have usually been exempt from birth restrictions and rural families have also been allowed to have more children.

Liaoning’s birth rate fell to 6.39 per 1,000 people last year, far lower than the national rate of 10.94. Its population also dropped for the second consecutive year in 2018, hit not only by the decline in new births but also by an exodus of young people seeking work in other regions.

China’s one-child policy was part of a birth planning program designed to control the size of its population. Distinct from the family planning policies of most other countries (which focus on providing contraceptive options to help women have the number of children they want), it set a limit on the number of children parents could have, the world’s most extreme example of population planning. It was introduced in 1979 (after a decade-long two-child policy),[1] modified in the mid 1980s to allow rural parents a second child if the first was a daughter, and then lasted three more decades before being eliminated at the end of 2015. The policy also allowed exceptions for some other groups, including ethnic minorities. The term one-child policy is thus a misnomer, because for nearly 30 of the 37 years that it existed (1979–2015 included) about half of all parents in China were allowed to have a second child.

Provincial governments could, and did, require the use of contraception, sterilizations and abortions to ensure compliance, and imposed enormous fines for violations. Local and national governments created commissions to raise awareness and carry out registration and inspection work. China also rewards families with only one child. From 1982 onwards, in accordance with the instructions on further family planning issued by the CPC central committee and the state council in that year, regulations awarded 5 yuan per month for only children. Parents who had one child would also get a “one-child glory certificate”.[2]

According to the Chinese government, 400million births were prevented, starting from 1970, a decade before the start of the one child policy. Some scholars have disputed this claim, with Martin King Whyte and Wang et alcontending that the policy had little effect on population growth or the size of the total population.[3][4][5] China has been compared to countries with similar socioeconomic development like Thailand and Iran, along with the Indian states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, which achieved similar declines of fertility without a one-child policy.[6] However, a recent demographic study challenged these scholars by showing that China’s low fertility was achieved two or three decades earlier than would be expected given its level of development, and that more than 500 million births were prevented between 1970 and 2015 (a calculation based on an alternative model of fertility decline proposed by the scholars themselves),[4] some 400 million of which may have been due to one-child restrictions.[7] In addition, by 2060 China’s birth planning policies may have averted as many as 1 billion people in China when one adds in all the eliminated descendants of the births originally averted by the policies.[8][9] Although 76% of Chinese people said that they supported the policy in a 2008 survey, it was controversial outside of China.[10]

Effective from January 2016, the national birth planning policy became a universal two-child policy that allowed each couple to have two children.

China’s population since 1950

Contents

Background

Birth rate in China

During the period of Mao Zedong‘s leadership in China, the birth rate fell from 37 per thousand to 20 per thousand.[11] Infant mortality declined from 227 per thousand births in 1949 to 53 per thousand in 1981, and life expectancy dramatically increased from around 35 years in 1948 to 66 years in 1976.[11][12] Until the 1960s, the government encouraged families to have as many children as possible[13] because of Mao’s belief that population growth empowered the country, preventing the emergence of family planning programs earlier in China’s development.[14] The population grew from around 540million in 1949 to 940million in 1976.[15] Beginning in 1970, citizens were required to marry at later ages and many were limited to have only two children.[1]

Although China’s fertility rate plummeted faster than anywhere else in the world during the 1970s under these restrictions, the Chinese government thought that fertility was still too high, influenced by the global debate over a possible overpopulation catastrophe suggested by organizations such as Club of Rome and Sierra Club. It thus began to encourage one-child families in 1978, and then announced in 1979 its intention to advocate for one-child families. In 1980, the central government organized a meeting in Chengdu to discuss the speed and scope of one-child restrictions.[1]

One participant at the Chengdu meeting had read two influential books about population concerns, The Limits to Growth and A Blueprint for Survival while visiting Europe in 1979. That official, Song Jian, along with several associates, determined that the ideal population of China was 700million, and that a universal one-child policy for all would be required to meet that goal.[16] Moreover, Song and his group showed that if fertility rates remained constant at 3 births per woman, China’s population would surpass 3 billion by 2060 and 4 billion by 2080.[1] In spite of some criticism inside the party, the plan (also referred to as the Family Planning Policy[17]) was formally implemented as a temporary measure on 18 September 1980.[18][19][20][21] The plan called for families to have one child each in order to curb a then-surging population and alleviate social, economic, and environmental problems in China.[22][23]

Although a recent and often-repeated interpretation by Greenhalgh claims that Song Jian was the central architect of the one-child policy and that he “hijacked” the population policymaking process,[24] that claim has been refuted by several leading scholars, including Liang Zhongtang, a leading internal critic of one-child restrictions and an eye-witness at the discussions in Chengdu.[25] In the words of Wang et al., “the idea of the one-child policy came from leaders within the Party, not from scientists who offered evidence to support it”[3] Central officials had already decided in 1979 to advocate for one-child restrictions before knowing of Song’s work and, upon learning of his work in 1980, already seemed sympathetic to his position.[26] Moreover, even if Song’s work convinced them to proceed with universal one-child restrictions in 1980, the policy was loosened to a “1.5”-child policy just five years later, and it is that policy which has been misnomered since as the “one-child policy.” Thus, it is misleading to suggest that Song Jian was either the inventor or architect of the policy.

History

The one-child policy was originally designed to be a “One-Generation Policy”.[27] It was enforced at the provincial level and enforcement varied; some provinces had more relaxed restrictions. The one-child limit was most strictly enforced in densely populated urban areas.[28]

Beginning in 1980, the official policy granted local officials the flexibility to make exceptions and allow second children in the case of “practical difficulties” (such as cases in which the father was a disabled serviceman) or when both parents were single children,[29] and some provinces had other exemptions worked into their policies as well. In most areas, families were allowed to apply to have a second child if their first-born was a daughter.[30][31] Furthermore, families with children with disabilities have different policies and families whose first child suffers from physical disability, mental illness, or intellectual disability were allowed to have more children.[32] However, second children were sometimes subject to birth spacing (usually 3 or 4 years). Children born in overseas countries were not counted under the policy if they did not obtain Chinese citizenship. Chinese citizens returning from abroad were allowed to have a second child.[33] Sichuan province allowed exemptions for couples of certain backgrounds.[34]By one estimate there were at least 22 ways in which parents could qualify for exceptions to the law towards the end of the one-child policy’s existence.[35] As of 2007, only 36% of the population were subjected to a strict one-child limit. 53% were permitted to have a second child if their first was a daughter; 9.6% of Chinese couples were permitted two children regardless of their gender; and 1.6% – mainly Tibetans – had no limit at all.[36]

The Danshan, Sichuan Province Nongchang Village people Public Affairs Bulletin Board in September 2005 noted that RMB 25,000 in social compensation fees were owed in 2005. Thus far 11,500 RMB had been collected, so another 13,500 RMB had to be collected.

Following the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, a new exception to the regulations was announced in Sichuan for parents who had lost children in the earthquake.[37][38] Similar exceptions had previously been made for parents of severely disabled or deceased children.[39] People have also tried to evade the policy by giving birth to a second child in Hong Kong, but at least for Guangdong residents, the one-child policy was also enforced if the birth was given in Hong Kong or abroad.[40]

In accordance with China’s affirmative action policies towards ethnic minorities, all non-Han ethnic groups are subjected to different laws and were usually allowed to have two children in urban areas, and three or four in rural areas. Han Chinese living in rural towns were also permitted to have two children.[41] Because of couples such as these, as well as who simply pay a fine (or “social maintenance fee”) to have more children,[42] the overall fertility rate of mainland China was close to 1.4 children per woman as of 2011.[43]

On 6 January 2010, the former national population and family planning commission issued the “national population development” 12th five-year plan.[44]

Enforcement

Chinese One-Child Policy propaganda from 1982

Financial

The Family Planning Policy was enforced through a financial penalty in the form of the “social child-raising fee”, sometimes called a “family planning fine” in the West, which was collected as a fraction of either the annual disposable income of city dwellers or of the annual cash income of peasants, in the year of the child’s birth.[45] For instance, in Guangdong, the fee was between 3 and 6 annual incomes for incomes below the per capita income of the district, plus 1 to 2 times the annual income exceeding the average. The family was required to pay the fine.[46]

Mandatory contraception and sterilization

As part of the policy, women were required to have a contraceptive intrauterine device (IUD) surgically installed after having a first child, and to be sterilized by tubal ligation after having a second child. From 1980 to 2014, 324 million Chinese women were fitted with IUDs in this way and 108 million were sterilized. Women who refused these procedures – which many resented – could lose their government employment and their children could lose access to education or health services. The IUDs installed in this way were modified such that they could not be removed manually, but only through surgery.

In 2016, following the abolition of the one-child policy, the Chinese government announced that IUD removals would now be paid for by the government.[47]

Relaxation

In 2013, Deputy Director Wang Peian of the National Health and Family Planning Commission said that “China’s population will not grow substantially in the short term”.[48] A survey by the commission found that only about half of eligible couples wish to have two children, mostly because of the cost of living impact of a second child.[49]

In November 2013, following the Third Plenum of the 18th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, China announced the decision to relax the one-child policy. Under the new policy, families could have two children if one parent, rather than both parents, was an only child.[50][51] This mainly applied to urban couples, since there were very few rural only children due to long-standing exceptions to the policy for rural couples.[52]Zhejiang, one of the most affluent provinces, became the first area to implement this “relaxed policy” in January 2014,[53] and 29 out of the 31 provinces had implemented it by July 2014,[54] with the exceptions of Xinjiang and Tibet. Under this policy, approximately 11million couples in China are allowed to have a second child; however, only “nearly one million” couples applied to have a second child in 2014,[55] less than half the expected number of 2 million per year.[54] By May 2014, 241,000 out of 271,000 applications had been approved. Officials of China’s National Health and Family Planning Commission claimed that this outcome was expected, and that “second-child policy” would continue progressing with a good start.[56]

In 2016, 433 births and 211 deaths were recorded in Wulipu, Hubei. The birth rate was 8.9% and death rate was 4.3% resulting in a natural population increase of 4.6%.[57] In the results of a separate survey published by the Shayang County government, Wulipu’s population had increased from 48,044 to 48,132 during a survey period. 424 children were born during the survey period resulting in a birth rate of 8.82%. During the same period, 63 people died, resulting in death rate of 1.31%. Of the births in the survey, 406 (95.75%) were in compliance with the family planning policy of China. 312 (73.58%) of the births were the firstborn in the family. (All of these births were in compliance with the family planning policy of China.) Among the firstborn children, 157 were female. 107 (25.24%) of the births were the second-born child in the family. 90 of these births were in compliance with the family planning policy of China. Among the second-born children, 47 were female. Five (1.18%) of the births surveyed were neither the firstborn nor second-born child in the family. Four of these births were in compliance with the family planning policy of China. Among the children born who were neither firstborn nor second-born, two were female.[58]

The rationale for the abolition was summarized by former Wall Street Journal reporter Mei Fong: “The reason China is doing this right now is because they have too many men, too many old people, and too few young people. They have this huge crushing demographic crisis as a result of the one-child policy. And if people don’t start having more children, they’re going to have a vastly diminished workforce to support a huge aging population.”[68] China’s ratio is about five working adults to one retiree; the huge retiree community must be supported, and that will dampen future growth, according to Fong.

Since the citizens of China are living longer and having fewer children, the growth of the population imbalance is expected to continue, as reported by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which referred to a United Nations projections forecast that “China will lose 67million working-age people by 2030, while simultaneously doubling the number of elderly. That could put immense pressure on the economy and government resources.”[22] The longer term outlook is also pessimistic, based on an estimate by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, revealed by Cai Fang, deputy director. “By 2050, one-third of the country will be aged 60 years or older, and there will be fewer workers supporting each retired person.”[69]

Although many critics of China’s reproductive restrictions approve of the policy’s abolition, Amnesty International said that the move to the two-child policy would not end forced sterilizations, forced abortions, or government control over birth permits.[70][71] Others also stated that the abolition is not a sign of the relaxation of authoritarian control in China. A reporter for CNN said, “It was not a sign that the party will suddenly start respecting personal freedoms more than it has in the past. No, this is a case of the party adjusting policy to conditions. … The new policy, raising the limit to two children per couple, preserves the state’s role.”[72][73]

The abolition may not achieve a significant benefit, as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation analysis indicated: “Repealing the one-child policy may not spur a huge baby boom, however, in part because fertility rates are believed to be declining even without the policy’s enforcement. Previous easings of the one-child policy have spurred fewer births than expected, and many people among China’s younger generations see smaller family sizes as ideal.”[22] The CNN reporter adds that China’s new prosperity is also a factor in the declining[69] birth rate, saying, “Couples naturally decide to have fewer children as they move from the fields into the cities, become more educated, and when women establish careers outside the home.”[72]

The Chinese government had expected the abolishing of the one-child rule would lead to an increase in births to about 21.9 million births in 2018. The actual number of births was 15.2 million – the lowest birth rate since 1961.[74]

The policy was enforced at the provincial level through fines that were imposed based on the income of the family and other factors. “Population and Family Planning Commissions” existed at every level of government to raise awareness and carry out registration and inspection work.[75]

The fertility rate in China continued its fall from 2.8 births per woman in 1979 (already a sharp reduction from more than five births per woman in the early 1970s) to 1.5 by the mid 1990s. Some scholars claim that this decline is similar to that observed in other places that had no one-child restrictions, such as Thailand as well as Indian states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, a claim designed to support the argument that China’s fertility might have fallen to such levels anyway without draconian fertility restrictions.[3][76][6][77]

According to a 2017 study in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, “the one-child policy accelerated the already-occurring drop in fertility for a few years, but in the longer term, economic development played a more fundamental role in leading to and maintaining China’s low fertility level.”.[78] However, a more recent study found that China’s fertility decline to very low levels by the mid 1990s was far more impressive given its lower level of socio-economic development at that time;[9] even after taking rapid economic development into account, China’s fertility restrictions likely averted over 500 million births between 1970 and 2015, with the portion caused by one-child restrictions possibly totaling 400 million.[7] Fertility restrictions also had other unintended consequences, such as a deficit of 40 million female babies. Most of this deficit was due to sex-selective abortion as well as the 1.5 child stopping rule, which required rural parents to stop childbearing if their first born was a son.[79] Another consequence was the acceleration of the aging of China’s population.[80][81]

Disparity in sex ratio at birth

The sex ratio at birth in People’s Republic of China, males per 100 females, 1980–2010.

The sex ratio of a newborn infant (between male and female births) in mainland China reached 117:100, and stabilized between 2000 and 2013, about 10% higher than the baseline, which ranges between 103:100 and 107:100. It had risen from 108:100 in 1981—at the boundary of the natural baseline—to 111:100 in 1990.[82] According to a report by the National Population and Family Planning Commission, there will be 30million more men than women in 2020, potentially leading to social instability, and courtship-motivated emigration.[83]

The disparity in the gender ratio at birth increases dramatically after the first birth, for which the ratios remained steadily within the natural baseline over the 20 year interval between 1980 and 1999. Thus, a large majority of couples appear to accept the outcome of the first pregnancy, whether it is a boy or a girl. If the first child is a girl, and they are able to have a second child, then a couple may take extraordinary steps to assure that the second child is a boy. If a couple already has two or more boys, the sex ratio of higher parity births swings decidedly in a feminine direction. This demographic evidence indicates that while families highly value having male offspring, a secondary norm of having a girl or having some balance in the sexes of children often comes into play. Zeng 1993 reported a study based on the 1990 census in which they found sex ratios of just 65 or 70 boys per 100 girls for births in families that already had two or more boys.[84] A study by Anderson & Silver (1995) found a similar pattern among both Han and non-Han nationalities in Xinjiang Province: a strong preference for girls in high parity births in families that had already borne two or more boys.[85] This tendency to favour girls in high parity births to couples who had already borne sons was later also noted by Coale and Banister, who suggested as well that once a couple had achieved its goal for the number of males, it was also much more likely to engage in “stopping behavior”, i.e., to stop having more children.[86]

The long-term disparity has led to a significant gender imbalance or skewing of the sex ratio. As reported by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, China has between 32million and 36million more males than would be expected naturally, and this has led to social problems. “Because of a traditional preference for baby boys over girls, the one-child policy is often cited as the cause of China’s skewed sex ratio … Even the government acknowledges the problem and has expressed concern about the tens of millions of young men who won’t be able to find brides and may turn to kidnapping women, sex trafficking, other forms of crime or social unrest.”[22] The situation will not improve in the near future. According to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, there will be 24 million more men than women of marriageable age by 2020.[87]

Education

According to a 2017 study in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, “existing studies indicate either a modest or minimal effect of the fertility change induced by the one-child policy on children education”.[78]

Adoption and abandonment

For parents who had “unauthorized” births or who wanted a son but had a daughter, giving up the child for adoption was a kind of strategy to avoid penalties under one-child restrictions. In fact, “out adoption” was not uncommon in China even before birth planning. In the 1980s, adoptions of daughters accounted for slightly above half of the so-called “missing girls”, as out-adopted daughters often went unreported in censuses and survey and adoptive parents were not penalized for violating birth quotas [88] However, in 1991, a central decree attempted to close off this loophole by raising penalties and levying those penalties on any household that had an “unauthorized” child, including those that had adopted children.[89] This closing of the adoption loophole resulted in the abandonment of some two million Chinese children (mostly daughters),[9] many of who ended up in orphanages, some 120,000 of whom would be adopted by international parents.

The peak wave of abandonment occurred in the 1990s, with a smaller wave after 2000.[89] Around the same time, poor care and high mortality rates in some state orphanages generated intense international pressure for reform.[90][91]

After 2005, the number of international adoptions declined, due both to falling birth rates and the related increase in demand for adoptions by Chinese parents themselves. In an interview with National Public Radio on 30 October 2015, Adam Pertman,[92] president and CEO of the National Center on Adoption and Permanency, indicated that “the infant girls of yesteryear have not been available, if you will, for five, seven years. China has been … trying to keep the girls within the country … And the consequence is that, today, rather than those young girls who used to be available – primarily girls – today, it’s older children, children with special needs, children in sibling groups. It’s very, very different.”[93]

Twins

Since there are no penalties for multiple births, it is believed that an increasing number of couples are turning to fertility medicines to induce the conception of twins. According to a 2006 China Daily report, the number of twins born per year was estimated to have doubled.[timeframe?][94]

Quality of life for women

Some sources state that the one-child policy has played a major role in improving the quality of life for women in China.[citation needed] Proponents of this view hold that with the one-child policy, gender equality started to be emphasized in China and women had the same opportunity to be educated as men.[citation needed] For thousands of years, girls have held a lower status in Chinese households. However, the one-child policy’s limit on the number of children has prompted parents of women to start investing money in their well-being. As a result of being an only child, women have increased opportunity to receive an education, and support to get better jobs. One of the side effects of the one-child policy is to have liberated women from heavy duties in terms of taking care of many children and the family in the past; instead women had a lot of spare time for themselves to pursue their career or hobbies. The other major “side effect” of the one child policy is that the traditional concepts of gender roles between men and women have weakened. Being one and the only “chance” the parents have, women are expected to compete with peer men for better educational resources or career opportunities. Especially in cities where one-child policy was much more regulated and enforced, expectations on women to succeed in life are no less than on men. Recent data has shown that the proportion of women attending college is higher than that of men. The policy also has a positive effect of the policy fines at 10 to 19 years of age on the likelihood of completing senior high school in women of Han ethnicity. At the same time, the one-child policy reduces the economic burden for each family. The condition for each family has become better. As a result, women also have much more freedom within the family.They are supported by their family to pursue their life achievements.[95]

Healthcare improvements

It is reported that the focus of China on population planning helps provide a better health service for women and a reduction in the risks of death and injury associated with pregnancy. At family planning offices, women receive free contraception and pre-natal classes that contributed to the policy’s success in two respects. First, the average Chinese household expends fewer resources, both in terms of time and money, on children, which gives many Chinese people more money with which to invest. Second, since Chinese adults can no longer rely on children to care for them in their old age, there is an impetus to save money for the future.[96]

“Four-two-one” problem

A government sign in Tangshan Township: “For a prosperous, powerful nation and a happy family, please practice family planning.”

As the first generation of law-enforced only-children came of age for becoming parents themselves, one adult child was left with having to provide support for his or her two parents and four grandparents.[97][98] Called the “4-2-1 Problem”, this leaves the older generations with increased chances of dependency on retirement funds or charity in order to receive support. If not for personal savings, pensions, or state welfare, most senior citizens would be left entirely dependent upon their very small family or neighbours for assistance. If, for any reason, the single child is unable to care for their older adult relatives, the oldest generations would face a lack of resources and necessities. In response to such an issue, by 2007, all provinces in the nation except Henan had adopted a new policy allowing couples to have two children if both parents were only children themselves;[99][failed verification][100] Henan followed in 2011.[101]

Being excluded from the family register means they do not possess a Hukou, which is “an identifying document, similar in some ways to the American social security card.”[102] In this respect they do not legally exist and as a result cannot access most public services, such as education and health care, and do not receive protection under the law.[103][104][105]

Potential social problems

Some parents may over-indulge their only child. The media referred to the indulged children in one-child families as “little emperors“.[106] Since the 1990s, some people have worried that this will result in a higher tendency toward poor social communication and cooperation skills amongst the new generation, as they have no siblings at home. No social studies have investigated the ratio of these so-called “over-indulged” children and to what extent they are indulged. With the first generation of children born under the policy (which initially became a requirement for most couples with first children born starting in 1979 and extending into the 1980s) reaching adulthood, such worries were reduced.[107]

However, the “little emperor syndrome” and additional expressions, describing the generation of Chinese singletons are very abundant in the Chinese media, Chinese academia and popular discussions. Being over-indulged, lacking self-discipline and having no adaptive capabilities are traits that are highly associated with Chinese singletons.[108]

Some 30 delegates called on the government in the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference in March 2007 to abolish the one-child rule, citing “social problems and personality disorders in young people”. One statement read, “It is not healthy for children to play only with their parents and be spoiled by them: it is not right to limit the number to two children per family, either.”[109] The proposal was prepared by Ye Tingfang, a professor at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, who suggested that the government at least restore the previous rule that allowed couples to have up to two children. According to a scholar, “The one-child limit is too extreme. It violates nature’s law. And in the long run, this will lead to mother nature’s revenge.”[109][110]

Birth tourism

Reports surfaced of Chinese women giving birth to their second child overseas, a practice known as birth tourism. Many went to Hong Kong, which is exempt from the one-child policy. Likewise, a Hong Kong passport differs from China mainland passport by providing additional advantages. Recently though, the Hong Kong government has drastically reduced the quota of births set for non-local women in public hospitals. As a result, fees for delivering babies there have surged. As further admission cuts or a total ban on non-local births in Hong Kong are being considered, mainland agencies that arrange for expectant mothers to give birth overseas are predicting a surge in those going to North America.[111][unreliable source?]

As the United States practises birthright citizenship, all children born in the US will automatically have US citizenship. The closest US location from China is Saipan in the Northern Mariana Islands, a US dependency in the western Pacific Ocean that allows Chinese visitors without visa restrictions. As of 2012, the island was experiencing an upswing in Chinese births, since birth tourism there had become cheaper than to Hong Kong. This option is used by relatively affluent Chinese who often have secondary motives as well, wishing their children to be able to leave mainland China when they grow older or bring their parents to the US. Canada, compared to US, is less achievable as their government denies many visa requests.[112][113]

Sex-selective abortion

Due to the preference in Rural Chinese society to give birth to a son,[114] pre-natal sex determination and sex-selective abortions are illegal in China.[115] Often argued as one of the key factors in the imbalanced sex-ratio in China, as excess female infant mortality and underreporting of female births cannot solely explain this gender disparity.[116] Researchers have found that the gender of the firstborn child in rural parts of China impact whether or not the mother will seek an ultrasound for the second child. 40% of women with a firstborn son seek an ultrasound for their second pregnancy, versus 70% of women with firstborn daughters. This clearly depicts a desire for women to birth a son if one has not yet been birthed.[117] In response to this, the Chinese government made sex-selective abortions illegal in 2005.[117]

Criticism

The policy is controversial outside China for many reasons, including accusations of human rights abuses in the implementation of the policy, as well as concerns about negative social consequences.[118]

Statement of the effect of the policy on birth reduction

The Chinese government, quoting Zhai Zhenwu, director of Renmin University’s School of Sociology and Population in Beijing, estimates that 400million births were prevented by the one-child policy as of 2011, while some demographers challenge that number, putting the figure at perhaps half that level, according to CNN.[119] Zhai clarified that the 400million estimate referred not just to the one-child policy, but includes births prevented by predecessor policies implemented one decade before, stating that “there are many different numbers out there but it doesn’t change the basic fact that the policy prevented a really large number of births”.[120]

This claim is disputed by Wang Feng, director of the Brookings-Tsinghua Center for Public Policy, and Cai Yong from the Carolina Population Center at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill[120] Wang claims that “Thailand and China have had almost identical fertility trajectories since the mid 1980s”, and “Thailand does not have a one-child policy.”[120] China’s Health Ministry has also disclosed that at least 336million abortions were performed on account of the policy.[121]

According to a report by the US Embassy, scholarship published by Chinese scholars and their presentations at the October 1997 Beijing conference of the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population seemed to suggest that market-based incentives or increasing voluntariness is not morally better but that it is in the end more effective.[122] In 1988, Zeng Yi and Professor T. Paul Schultz of Yale University discussed the effect of the transformation to the market on Chinese fertility, arguing that the introduction of the contract responsibility system in agriculture during the early 1980s weakened family planning controls during that period.[123] Zeng contended that the “big cooking pot” system of the People’s Communes had insulated people from the costs of having many children. By the late 1980s, economic costs and incentives created by the contract system were already reducing the number of children farmers wanted.

A long-term experiment in a county in Shanxi, in which the family planning law was suspended, suggested that families would not have many more children even if the law were abolished.[35] A 2003 review of the policy-making process behind the adoption of the one-child policy shows that less intrusive options, including those that emphasized delay and spacing of births, were known but not fully considered by China’s political leaders.[124]

Unequal enforcement

Corrupted government officials and especially wealthy individuals have often been able to violate the policy in spite of fines.[125] Filmmaker Zhang Yimou had three children and was subsequently fined 7.48million yuan ($1.2million).[126] For example, between 2000 and 2005, as many as 1,968 officials in Hunan province were found to be violating the policy, according to the provincial family planning commission; also exposed by the commission were 21 national and local lawmakers, 24 political advisors, 112 entrepreneurs and 6 senior intellectuals.[125]

Some of the offending officials did not face penalties,[125] although the government did respond by raising fines and calling on local officials to “expose the celebrities and high-income people who violate the family planning policy and have more than one child”.[125] Also, people who lived in the rural areas of China were allowed to have two children without punishment, although the family is required to wait a couple of years before having another child.[127]

Human rights violations

The one-child policy has been challenged for violating a human right to determine the size of one’s own proper family. According to a 1968 proclamation of the International Conference on Human Rights, “Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children.”[128][129]

According to the UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph, a quota of 20,000 abortions and sterilizations was set for Huaiji County, Guangdong in one year due to reported disregard of the one-child policy. According to the article local officials were being pressured into purchasing portable ultrasound devices to identify abortion candidates in remote villages. The article also reported that women as far along as 8.5 months pregnant were forced to abort, usually by an injection of saline solution.[130] A 1993 book by social scientist Steven W. Mosher reported that women in their ninth month of pregnancy, or already in labour, were having their children killed whilst in the birth canal or immediately after birth.[131]

According to a 2005 news report by Australian Broadcasting Corporation correspondent John Taylor, China outlawed the use of physical force to make a woman submit to an abortion or sterilization in 2002 but ineffectively enforces the measure.[132] In 2012, Feng Jianmei, a villager from Shaanxi province was forced into an abortion by local officials after her family refused to pay the fine for having a second child. Chinese authorities have since apologized and two officials were fired, while five others were sanctioned.[133]

In the past, China promoted eugenics as part of its population planning policies, but the government has backed away from such policies, as evidenced by China’s ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which compels the nation to significantly reform its genetic testing laws.[134] Recent[when?] research has also emphasized the necessity of understanding a myriad of complex social relations that affect the meaning of informed consent in China.[135] Furthermore, in 2003, China revised its marriage registration regulations and couples no longer have to submit to a pre-marital physical or genetic examination before being granted a marriage license.[136]

Multiple research studies have also found that sex-selective abortion – where a woman undergoes an ultrasound to determine the sex of her baby, and then aborts it if it’s a girl – was widespread for years, particularly for second or subsequent children. Millions of female fetuses have been aborted since the 1970s. China outlawed sex selective abortions in 2005, but the law is tough to enforce because of the difficulty of proving why a couple decided to have an abortion. The abandonment, and killing, of baby girls has also been reported, though recent research studies say it has become rare, in part due to strict criminal prohibitions.[22]

Ball, David (2002). China Run. Simon & Schuster. ISBN978-0-74322743-8. A novel about an American woman who travels to China to adopt an orphan of the one-child policy, only to find herself a fugitive when the Chinese government informs her that she has been given “the wrong baby”.

The difficulties of implementing the one-child policy are dramatized in Mo Yan‘s novel Frog (2009; English translation by Howard Goldblatt, 2015).

Avoiding the family-planning enforcers is at the heart of Ma Jian‘s novel The Dark Road (translated by Flora Drew, 2013).

Novelist Lu Min writes about her own family’s experience with the One Child Policy in her essay “A Second Pregnancy, 1980” (translated by Helen Wang, 2015).[150]

Xue, Xinran (2015). Buy Me the Sky. Rider (imprint). ISBN978-1-8460-4471-7. Tells the stories of the children brought up under China’s one-child policy and the effect that has had on their lives, families and ability to deal with life’s challenges.

Fong, Mei (2016). One Child: The Story of China’s Most Radical Experiment. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN9780544275393.

Population pyramid

This distribution is named for the frequently pyramidal shape of its graph.

A population pyramid, also called an “age-sex- pyramid“, is a graphical illustration that shows the distribution of various age groups in a population (typically that of a country or region of the world), which forms the shape of a pyramid when the population is growing.[1] Males are conventionally shown on the left and females on the right, and they may be measured by raw number or as a percentage of the total population. This tool can be used to visualize and age of a particular population.[2] It is also used in ecology to determine the overall age distribution of a population; an indication of the reproductive capabilities and likelihood of the continuation of a species.

Population pyramids often contain continuous stacked-histogram bars, making it a horizontal bar diagram. The population size is depicted on the x-axis (horizontal) while the age-groups are represented on the y-axis (vertical).[3] The size of the population can either be measured as a percentage of the total population or by raw number. Males are conventionally shown on the left and females on the right. Population pyramids are often viewed as the most effective way to graphically depict the age and distribution of a population, partly because of the very clear image these pyramids represent.[4] A great deal of information about the population broken down by age and sex can be read from a population pyramid, and this can shed light on the extent of development and other aspects of the population.

The measures of central tendency, mean, median, and mode, should be considered when assessing a population pyramid. since the data is not completely accurate. For example, the average age could be used to determine the type of population in a particular region. A population with an average age of 15 would have a young population compared to a population that has an average age of 55, which would be considered an older population. It is also important to consider these measures because the collected data is not completely accurate. The mid-year population is often used in calculations to account for the number of births and deaths that occur.

A population pyramid gives a clear picture of how a country transitions from high fertility to low fertility rate. The broad base of the pyramid means the majority of population lies between ages 0–14, which tells us that the fertility rate of the country is high and above population sub-replacement fertility level. The older population is declining over time due to a shorter life expectancy of sixty years.[5] However, there are still more females than males in these ranges since women have a longer life expectancy. As reported by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, women tend to live longer than men because women do not partake in risky behaviors. Also, Weeks’ Population: an Introduction to Concepts and Issues, considered that the sex ratio gap for the older ages will shrink due to women’s health declining due to the effects of smoking, as suggested by the United Nations and U.S. Census Bureau. Moreover, it can also reveal the age-dependency ratio of a population. Populations with a big base, young population, or a big top, an older population, shows that there is a higher dependency ratio. The dependency ratio refers to how many people are dependent on the working class (ages 15–64). According to Weeks’ Population: an Introduction to Concepts and Issues, population pyramids can be used to predict the future, known as a population forecast. Population momentum, when a population’s birth rates continue to increase even after replacement level has been reached, can even be predicted if a population has a low mortality rate since the population will continue to grow. This then brings up the term doubling time, which is used to predict when the population will double in size. Lastly, a population pyramid can even give insight on the economic status of a country from the age stratification since the distribution of supplies are not evenly distributed through a population.

In the demographic transition model, the size and shape of population pyramids vary. In stage one of the demographic transition model, the pyramids have the most defined shape. They have the ideal big base and skinny top. In stage two, the pyramid looks similar, but starts to widen in the middle age groups. In stage three, the pyramids start to round out and look similar in shape to a tombstone. In stage four, there is a decrease in the younger age groups. This causes the base of the widened pyramid to narrow. Lastly, in stage five, the pyramid starts to take on the shape of a kite as the base continues to decrease. The shape of the population is dependent upon what the economy is like in the country. More developed countries can be found in stages three four and five while the least developed countries have a population represented by the pyramids in stages one and two.

Types

Each country will have different or unique population pyramids. However, population pyramids will be defined as the following: stationary, expansive, or constrictive. These types have been identified by the fertility and mortality rates of a country.[6]

“Stationary” pyramid

A pyramid can be described as stationary if the percentages of population (age and sex) remains constant over time.[7] Stationary population is when a population contains equal birth rates and death rates.[7]

“Expansive” pyramid

A population pyramid that is very wide at the younger ages, characteristic of countries with high birth rate and low life expectancy.[6] The population is said to be fast-growing, and the size of each birth cohort gets larger than the size of the previous year.[8]

“Constrictive” pyramid

A population pyramid that is narrowed at the bottom. The population is generally older on average, as the country has long life expectancy, a low death rate, but also a low birth rate.[6] However, the percentage of younger population are extremely low, this can cause issues with dependency ratio of the population.[8] This pyramid is more common when immigrants are factored out. This is a typical pattern for a very developed country, a high level of education, easy access to and incentive to use birth control, good health care, and few negative environmental factors.[9]

Gary Fuller (1995) described Youth bulge as a type of expansive pyramid. Gunnar Heinsohn (2003) argues that an excess in especially young adult male population predictably leads to social unrest, war and terrorism, as the “third and fourth sons” that find no prestigious positions in their existing societies rationalize their impetus to compete by religion or political ideology.

Heinsohn claims that most historical periods of social unrest lacking external triggers (such as rapid climatic changes or other catastrophic changes of the environment) and most genocides can be readily explained as a result of a built-up youth bulge, including European colonialism, 20th-century fascism, rise of Communism during the Cold War, and ongoing conflicts such as that in Darfur and terrorism.[10] This factor has been also used to account for the Arab Spring events.[11]Economic recessions, such as the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Late 2000’s recession, are also claimed to be explained in part due to a large youth population who cannot find jobs.[11] Youth bulge can be seen as one factor among many in explaining social unrest and uprisings in society.[12] A 2016 study finds that youth bulges increases the chances of non-ethnic civil wars, but not ethnic civil wars.[13]

A large population of adolescents entering the labor force and electorate strains at the seams of the economy and polity, which were designed for smaller populations. This creates unemployment and alienation unless new opportunities are created quickly enough – in which case a ‘demographic dividend’ accrues because productive workers outweigh young and elderly dependents. Yet the 16–30 age range is associated with risk-taking, especially among males. In general, youth bulges in developing countries are associated with higher unemployment and, as a result, a heightened risk of violence and political instability.[14][15] For Cincotta and Doces (2011), the transition to more mature age structures is almost a sine qua non for democratization.[16]

To reverse the effects of youth bulges, specific policies such as creating more jobs, improving family planning programs, and reducing over all infant mortality rates should be a priority.[17]

Population pyramid of Egypt in 2005. Many of those 30 and younger are educated citizens who are experiencing difficulty finding work.

Nearly half of Libya‘s 2011 population consists of children younger than age 20.

Middle East and North Africa

The Middle East and North Africa are currently experiencing a prominent youth bulge. “Across the Middle East, countries have experienced a pronounced increase in the size of their youth populations over recent decades, both in total numbers and as a percentage of the total population. Today, the nearly 111 million individuals aging between 15 to 29 living across the region make up nearly 27 percent of the region’s population.” [18] Structural changes in service provision, especially health care, beginning in the 1960s created the conditions for a demographic explosion, which has resulted in a population consisting primarily of younger people. It is estimated that around 65% of the regional population is under the age of 30.[19]

The Middle East has invested more in education, including religious education, than most other regions such that education is available to most children.[20] However, that education has not led to higher levels of employment, and youth unemployment is currently at 25%, the highest of any single region.[21] Of this 25%, over half are first time entrants into the job market.[20]

The youth bulge in the Middle East and North Africa has been favorably compared to that of East Asia, which harnessed this human capital and saw huge economic growth in recent decades.[22] The youth bulge has been referred to by the Middle East Youth Initiative as a demographic gift, which, if engaged, could fuel regional economic growth and development.[23] “While the growth of the youth population imposes supply pressures on education systems and labor markets, it also means that a growing share of the overall population is made up of those considered to be of working age; and thus not dependent on the economic activity of others. In turn, this declining dependency ratio can have a positive impact on overall economic growth, creating a demographic dividend. The ability of a particular economy to harness this dividend, however, is dependent on its ability to ensure the deployment of this growing working-age population towards productive economic activity, and to create the jobs necessary for the growing labor force.” [18]

Further reading

Gary Fuller, The Demographic Backdrop to Ethnic Conflict: A Geographic Overview, was born in 1989 and was produced by Edward Gewin: The Challenge of Ethnic Conflict to National and International Order in the 1990s, Washington: CIA (RTT 95-10039, October), 151-154.

Trump and Kim Jong-un meet at Korean demilitarised zone – BBC News

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and US President Donald Trump met in Panmunjom, the so-called truce village inside the border zone, where negotiations between South and North Korea have often taken place. President Trump said: “Stepping across that line was a great honour”.

Trump is first sitting US president to step foot in North Korea

Trump’s historic moment in North Korea earns Democrat rage

Tim Ryan calls Trump’s historic DMZ visit an ‘appeasement tour’

FULL COVERAGE: [S. Korea-U.S Summit] Moon, Trump arrive at DMZ between two Koreas

What does Trump’s meeting with Kim mean for nuclear talks?

Obama warns North Korea against missile test

Trump takes historic walk from the DMZ into North Korean territory as he meets Kim Jong-un, who hails him as ‘courageous’ – and the president invites dictator to visit the U.S. and announces resumption of ‘concrete negotiations’

The president visited the DMZ on Sunday

He shook hands with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un

He walked across the demarcation line into North Korean territory

Trump repeatedly touted a potential meeting starting Saturday

He stoked the drama saying nothing was ‘final’ until hours before it occurred

Become the first U.S. president to step inside North Korea

North Korea said at first said it was waiting for a formal invitation to meet Trump

President Donald Trump has taken the historic walk from the DMZ into North Korean territory in order to embark on a meeting with dictator Kim Jong-un.

Shortly after the pair greeted each other with a handshake Sunday, Trump was hailed as ‘courageous’ by the North Korean leader. Trump in turn praised the ‘power’ of Kim’s voice – then criticized his predecessor and faulted the media for down-playing his achievements.

‘This has a lot of significance because it means that we want to bring an end to the unpleasant past and try to create a new future, so it’s a very courageous and determined act,’ Kim told Trump through a translator after smiling during their initial handshake greeting.

‘You’re the first U.S. president to cross this line,’ Kim told him, moments after Trump became the first American president to venture into North Korean territory. Trump announced after the meeting that in the ‘near future’ the two sides would be able to ‘get some good results after concrete negotiations’ – but with nothing tangible other than the commitment to resume talks.

During the key moment – filmed and photographed from both directions – Trump slowly approached the boundary, as Kim strode toward him, arms moving. The two leaders shook hands at 3:45 pm local time above the low concrete barrier that marks the line of demarcation.

U.S. President Donald Trump meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas, in Panmunjom

Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump shake hands during a meeting on the south side of the Military Demarcation Line

‘Good to see you again,’ Kim told his counterpart,’ whom he last saw during a summit in Hanoi that ended without agreement. ‘I never expected to meet you at this place.’

CNN reported that Trump on the spot invited Kim to visit the U.S. Trump later confirmed that, although with statements that were conflicting. He said the visit would happen ‘at the right time,’ but also said it could occur ‘any time’ Kim wanted.

‘I said you, know what, at the right time, you’re going to come over. We’re going to go over there,’ Trump told reporters after his meeting, held along the 38th parallel, which marks the dividing line set at the time of the 1953 Korean War Armistice.

‘I said any time he wants to do it,’ Trump said soon afterward. The president said of a web of sanctions imposed on the north: ‘I’m looking forward to taking them off,’ but that they remain in place. ‘At some point during the negotiation, things can happen,’ he added.

White House Senior Advisors Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, walk in the border village of Panmunjom in the Demilitarized Zone, South Korea

South Korean President Moon Jae-in (R) meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, alongside US President Donald J. Trump (L), at the truce village of Panmunjom in the Demilitarized Zone, which separates the two Koreas, 30 June 2019

Photographers run as North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un and US President Donald Trump cross south of the Military Demarcation Line that divides North and South Korea, after Trump briefly stepped over to the northern side, in the Joint Security Area (JSA) of Panmunjom in the Demilitarized zone (DMZ) on June 30, 2019

President Donald Trump meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in, right, at the border village of Panmunjom in the Demilitarized Zone, South Korea, Sunday, June 30, 2019. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

NOT DEAD: People watch a TV screen showing an image of senior North Korean official Kim Yong Chol in a musical performance by the wives of Korean People’s Army officers in North Korea during a news program at the Seoul Railway Station in Seoul, South Korea, Monday. Trump said he knew ‘for a fact’ that North Korea’s top negotiator was alive

Trump repeatedly pointed to previous U.S.-North Korean tensions under the Obama administration – while leaving out mention of the period during his own term when repeated missile tests prompted him to threaten ‘fire and fury’ and blast Kim as ‘Rocket Man’ at the UN.

‘You see the level of relationship as opposed to the way I came into office – when I came into office it was a fiery mess,’ Trump said.

Trump and Kim, their relationship, negotiations and diplomacy talks

Today President Trump met Kim Yong Un between North and South Korea, as they embarked on their third high-stakes meeting since they launched negotiations last year – but how progressive have they been?

March 2018: Kim says he is willing to discuss his nuclear arsenal with Trump and Trump agrees to meet him

April 2018: Trump praises North Korea for ‘big progress’ after it announces it has suspended nuclear and long range missile tests and is shifting its focus to improving the economy

May 2018: North Korea frees three Americans that were imprisoned following a visit from Mike Pompeo ahead of a meeting between Trump and Kim

June 2018: Trump and Kim meet in Singapore for the first summit between the leaders of the U.S and North Korea since the end of the Korean War

January 2019: Kim delivers his New Year speech which details that he will continue nuclear talks with Trump but says he would seek ‘new way’ if the U.S continued with sanctions

February 2019: Meeting between the two collapses in Vietnam after Trump rejects Kim’s calls for sanction relief

April 2019: Kim agrees to meet Trump again, but sets a deadline to salvage democracy

May 2019: North Korea fires two missiles into the sea in a bid to dial up pressure on Seol and Washington

June 29 2019: Trump urges Kim to shakes hands ahead of their meeting, with North Korea calling it an ‘interesting suggestion’

June 30 2019: Trump and Kim meet inside the DMZ and shake hands, making Trump the first president to cross over into North Korean territory

Trump got asked about the status of Kim’s nuclear negotiators, after a thinly-sourced report out of South Korea that five top diplomats had been executed following the failure to reach a deal at the Hanoi summit in February.

‘I know for a fact he is [alive],’ Trump said of the DPRK’s top negotiator. As for others, Trump said, ‘I would hope the rest are too.’

Trump proclaimed his February summit, which failed to lead to an agreement, a ‘success,’ and says he told Kim as much.

‘I was telling Chairman Kim that actually to me Hanoi was a great success. The press reported it the opposite,’ Trump said.

During the initial meeting at the line of demarcation, a North Korean camera crew and photographers snapped images from Kim’s side, while American pool photographers and media came with Trump. White House handlers and a pool photographer urged them to hurry and stay out of the shots. ‘Get out of the way!’ someone could be heard yelling during the video feed of the scramble for position.

The two leaders then sat down inside the pastel blue Freedom House at the DMZ for what was to be a brief meeting.

Incoming White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham became bruised in a ‘scuffle’ with North Korean security as she tried to get press into position, CNNreported, with a source terming it an ‘all out brawl.’

Also there to witness some of the historic moment were first daughter Ivanka Trump and husband Jared Kushner, who also were on hand for a series of Trump’s meetings with foreign leaders in Osaka.

Asked shortly after the end of the Trump-Kim meeting what it was like to visit North Korea, the president’s daughter replied: ‘Surreal.’

At that event, like the greeting carried on live TV in Korea and on cable networks internationally, Trump thanked Kim again, once more stressing their personal bond, after Kim first lauded Trump.

‘I want to thank you, chairman,’ Trump said. ‘You hear the power of that voice. Nobody’s heard that voice before. He doesn’t do few news conferences, in case you haven’t heard,’ Trump quipped – in one of his only references to the absolute power Kim wields in a regime known for mass starvation and use of a Stalinist-style gulag system to suppress opposition to his inherited rule.

U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hands with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas, in Panmunjom, South Korea, June 30, 2019

AT THE DMZ: U.S. President Donald Trump and South Korean President Moon Jae-in are seen at the demilitarized zone (DMZ) separating the two Koreas, in Paju, South Korea, June 30, 2019

‘When I put out the social media notification, if he didn’t show up the press was going to make me look very bad,’ Trump said, referencing his unexpected Saturday tweet proposing a meeting. ‘So you made us both look good and I appreciate it.’

Kim told the media that with the meeting, ‘This means we can feel at ease and meet each other with positive mindsets.’

Trump and Kim meet at the DMZ, but what is it and why was it created?

The demilitarised zone spits the Korean peninsula in half – subsequently creating a buffer zone between North and South Korea – and is the most militarised border in the world.

It incorporates territory on both sides of the cease-fire lines which existed at the end of the Korean War which took place between 1950 and 1953.

It was created in 1953 by an agreement between North Korea and the People’s Republic of China, along with the United Nations Command.

Trump and Kim met today in the DMZ

Located within the territory is the so-called ‘truce village’ of P’anmunjom – the rest of the land is relatively untouched and is one of the most undeveloped areas in Asia.

Over the years there have been occasional issue but no major conflicts and in 2007 a limited freight-train service as resumed across the zone.

‘President Trump and myself, we have an excellent relationship with each other,’ Kim said, stressing the same themes Trump has been hitting for days, as he met leaders ranging from China’s Xi Jinping to Russia’s Vladimir Putin. ‘If it wasn’t for that good relationship, it would not have been able to make this meeting possible,’ he said.

Kim said he hoped it could be ‘the foundation for better things in the future that people will be not expecting.’

‘This will be a very mysterious force that allows us to overcome many difficulties that existed in the past,’ Kim predicted.

As he did during a Saturday meeting with Russia’s Vladimir Putin when he brought up the ‘fake news,’ Trump joked with a strongman counterpart about the press.

‘When I put out the social media notification, if he didn’t show up the press was going to make me look very bad,’ Trump said in reference to Kim and his tweet. ‘So you made us both look good and I appreciate it,’ the president told him. At another point he told the media that had Kim decided not to show, ‘You would have hit me hard.’

When it was over, Trump visited Osan Air Base for an outdoor event that had the feel of a Trump political rally – complete with Marine One in the background, and an audio soundtrack including Lee Greenwood’s ‘Proud to be an American’ and the Rolling Stones’ ‘You Can’t Always Get What you Want.’

Trump even opted to attack Democrats during what became a diplomatic victory speech to the troops, after saying the military equipment was ‘sadly depleted’ two and a half years ago.

‘This is not a political speech, but the Democrats weren’t going to give it to you, that I can tell you,’ he told the servicemen and women. ‘They want open borders and the hell with the military,’ Trump claimed, in a comment that could have drawn a Hatch Act complaint if made by a government employee.

Describing his earlier event, Trump said: ‘I actually stepped in to North Korea, and they say it’s a very historic moment. Many people, I noticed, from Korea were literally in tears,’ he said.

White House senior advisor Ivanka Trump, along with U.S. President Donald Trump and U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaks to U.S. troops at the Osan Airbase on June 20, 2019 in Pyeongtaek

Later he called Ivanka and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on stage. ‘Mike – Beauty and the beast, Mike,’ Trump quipped.

When he finally left the country – he made several comments about being ready to go back after an intense three-day trip – Trump tweeted: ‘Leaving South Korea after a wonderful meeting with Chairman Kim Jong Un. Stood on the soil of North Korea, an important statement for all, and a great honor!’

During the run-up to his Kim meeting, Trump flew from Seoul aboard Marine One to the DMZ. The president visited a border post, accompanied by South Korean President Moon Jae-in. He then met with U.S. and South Korean forces stationed at the tense boundary.

A military service-member then proceeded to give him a brief tour, pointing out North Korean territory from a vista at the line of demarcation.

He arrived there after telling reporters about his decision to go to the DMZ to hold the historic handshake meeting with Kim. Then Trump took a shot at the media from the protected guard post.

‘I say that for the press. They have no appreciation for what is being done, none,’ Trump vented.

Trump made some brief comments, which were carried on live television amid anticipation of what would be his third meeting with Kim. As he did earlier Trump complained about doubters.

‘After our first summit all of the danger went away,’ he said of the nuclear capable nation. ‘When they say there’s been no difference, there’s been a tremendous difference,’ he said.

‘I was just thinking – hey, I’m here, let’s see whether or not we can say hello to Kim Jong-un,’ Trump told reporters at a press event here in Seoul Sunday afternoon.

‘He wanted to do it from the beginning and so did I,’ the president said of his North Korean counterpart.

Later, speaking to a group of troops at a border post he visited, Trump said the DMZ visit had been scheduled ‘a number of months ago.’

‘I said we have to see the DMZ. So this was scheduled for a long time ago and then yesterday I had the idea, maybe I’ll call Chairman Kim and see if he wants to say hello. So we didn’t give him much notice,’ Trump told them.

Commander of U.S. Forces Korea Gen. Robert Abrams then presented Trump with a gift – a monogramed pullover that he said he hoped the president ‘might find some utility for you on one of your golf courses.’

Trump said of Kim during the count-down to the meeting: ‘We respect each other – maybe even like each other.

Stoking the drama, Trump told troops he would be meeting Kim within four minutes, although the scheduled meeting blew through that timeline.

President Trump received a briefing while at the DMZ

He viewed an observation post in anticipation of a meeting with the North Korean dictator

Trump was accompanied by the South Korean president

HISTORIC MEETING: President Donald Trump confirmed that he will meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un during his visit to the DMZ

President Donald Trump views North Korea from the Korean Demilitarized Zone from Observation Post Ouellette at Camp Bonifas in South Korea, Sunday, June 30, 2019

President Donald Trump arrives at the DMZ to meet with Kim Jong-Un

Assessing the potential for another meeting with the hermetic regime, Trump said: ‘It’s just a step. It might be an important step and it might not. But what we’re doing today is a step. And probably it’s a step in the right direction.’

‘There is a good feeling so it could be very good,’ said Trump.

He said the meeting would be brief, describing it as ‘just shake hands and say hello.’

South Korean leader Moon Jae-in first revealed the news at the start of a joint press event, with only a handful of reporters present.

‘The United States and North Korea will be meeting in Panmunjom for the first time in history – the leaders of the United States and North Korea will be standing face to face in Panmunjom the symbol of division,’ he said, through a translator during a joint press event with Trump in Seoul and referring to the Joint Security Area between north and south.

Trump and South Korean President Moon Jae-in broke the news of the Kim meeting

Trump also weaved in his North Korea policy with attacks on the ‘fake news’

The president called it a ‘first step’

‘They’re trying to work it out,’ Trump said of his potential handshake meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un

Basketball star Dennis Rodman tweeted about the meeting in advance

In this undated photo published on Sept. 7, 2013, on the homepage of North Korea’s Rodong Sinmun newspaper, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, left, talks with former NBA player Dennis Rodman during a dinner in North Korea

In addition to meeting with Kim, Trump may step inside North Korean territory.

Asked about the prospect on Saturday, he said he would ‘feel very comfortable’ doing so. He said he would ‘have no problem’ becoming the first U.S. president to set foot there.

Trump weaved the news of a meeting with attacks on what he calls the ‘fake news,’ who he claims have diminished his achievements in tamping down the security threat, which included regular missile launches early in his presidency.

‘It’s always insulting,’ Trump said.

He also continued to describe his bond with the North Korean dictator in personal terms. ‘We understand each other. I think he understands me and I think I maybe understand him. Sometimes that can lead to very good things,’ Trump said.

Former Chicago Bulls star Dennis Rodman, who has made news with his splashy trips to visit North Korea, tweeted about the news.

‘Wishing my friends, @RealDonaldTrump and Marshal Kim Jong Un a very good meeting… Much love to you both and keep up the wonderful progress!

The confirmation came after Trump spent the morning teasing the possibility of a meeting with Kim, building the drama with each media appearance throughout the day Sunday.

‘I understand that they want to meet and I’d love to say hello. It’s going to be very short but we are in territory that’s very close,’ Trump said, touting his trip hours before he was to visit the DMZ for the first time.

‘We don’t have to take long trips. We’ll see what happens. They’re trying to work it out,’ he said, adding it’s ‘not so easy.’

As for who might attend, Trump said: ‘I don’t’ know about beyond the two of us but I can say the two of us. But we’ll see how that goes.’

During meandering remarks at an event for business leaders, Trump said ‘nothing’s final’ about the meeting, which he floated Saturday morning.

But he touted his leadership on North Korea, and repeated his claim there would have been World War III if it weren’t for his election.

‘I’m really the opposite of a war-monger,’ Trump said.

Trump ran through key events of a recent cooling in tensions, including the return of the remains of U.S. Korean War dead, and the return of Otto Warmbier, who died shortly after his return to the U.S. in a coma.

Trump made his remarks at a meeting with South Korean business leaders

Ivanka Trump, second from left, and White House adviser Jared Kushner, right, talk with people before the start of remarks from President Donald Trump to Korean business leaders in Seoul, Sunday, June 30, 2019

Of the return of ‘our hostage,’ Trump said it was something ‘which we really appreciated from Jong-un, Chairman Kim.

Later, as he met South Korean President Moon Jae-in, President Moon referenced Trump’s tweet about meeting Kim. ‘I could really feel that the flower of peace was really blossoming on the Korean peninsula,’ he said.

Moon, who has pushed to keep the peace process going, said if Trump and Kim could meet at the line of demarcation it would be a ‘historic event.’

Trump also delivered a message that the peninsula was much safer since he took office, and attacked the ‘fake news’ for not showing it while also poking at the ‘previous administration.’

‘North Korea and South Korea are both in much better places right now than they were two and a half years ago when I became president. There was tremendous danger,’ Trump said.

‘A lot of progress has been made. I watch some of the news. Fake news, it’s only fake news. They said well what’s been done? Well, it’s like the difference between day and night,’ Trump said.

‘So when I hear some of these fakers some of these people that aren’t honest reporters saying well what has Trump done, you’ve done a lot,’ Trump said.

He added: ‘It’s changed very, very rapidly. It’s very positive. A lot of positive things going on right now.’

North Koreasaid on Saturday that Trump’s offer was a ‘very interesting suggestion,’ brightening prospects for a third face-to-face meeting between the two leaders.

The president tweeted from the G-20 in Osaka: ‘If Chairman Kim of North Korea sees this, I would meet him at the Border/DMZ just to shake his hand and say Hello(?)!’

It was later revealed he had told the Hill newspaper in an interview Monday he might go and meet come, but the paper held off publication in accordance with White House security concerns.

President Donald Trump and South Korean President Moon Jae-in pose for a photo during a visit to the tea house on the grounds of the Blue House in Seoul, South Korea on Saturday

The border between North and South Korea is seen from the South at the Panmunjom joint security area in the DMZ. The border is the line separating the brown dirt on the northern side from the grey gravel on the south, running between buildings used for peace talks

President Donald Trump shakes hands with North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un before their last meeting at the Sofitel Legend Metropole hotel in Hanoi on February 27, 2019

Earlier Saturday, Trump invited Kim to shake hands during his planned visit to the DMZ, which has served as a de-facto border between the Koreas since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War.

‘All I did is put out a feeler if you’d like to meet,’ Trump said later of the invitation, saying he didn’t even know if Kim was in North Korea.

Trump and Kim held a historic first summit in Singapore in June, which concluded with a vague joint statement where Kim pledged to work toward denuclearization. Then they met in Hanoi in February, but talks broke down without any joint agreement as Kim pushed for sanctions relief and the U.S. pushed for denuclearization.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un reads a letter from U.S. President Donald Trump which he described as ‘excellent’ earlier this month

The United States and North Korea are in a technical state of war because the 1950-53 Korean War ended with an armistice, not a peace treaty. About 28,500 American soldiers are deployed in South Korea as deterrence against potential aggression from North Korea.

Trump hits back at Jimmy Carter: Nice man, terrible president

Abe’s G-20 show eclipsed by Trump-China trade talks, tweets

The Group of 20 summit in Osaka ended Saturday with lofty language from powerful world leaders, but it was eclipsed by U.S. President Donald Trump, who agreed to restart trade talks with China and extended a surprise invitation for North Korea’s leader to meet him Sunday.

Despite the focus on Trump, the summit’s host, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, declared the gathering a success.

“The G-20 nations, as the countries that lead the world economy, have a responsibility to squarely face global problems and to come up with solutions through frank dialogue,” Abe said in concluding the meeting.

“Now, with this ‘Osaka Declaration,’ we should try to tenaciously find, not the differences, but common ground among us, and, we hope, to continue our effort to sustain global economic growth,” he said.

In striving for common ground, however, the summit declaration finessed differences and yielded no major new initiatives.

Still, German Chancellor Angela Merkel welcomed the fact that the leaders managed to hold the line on the issue of climate change, with 19 countries committing themselves to the Paris climate accord.

Only the United States dissented, reiterating Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement “because it disadvantages American workers and taxpayers.”

Merkel told reporters that “this process cannot be turned around.” She said some leaders in Osaka indicated they were willing to up commitments to curb greenhouse gases by aiming for “net zero” emissions by 2050.

Merkel also lauded the deal between the EU and the Latin American bloc MERCOSUR – also struck on the G-20 sidelines – to create the world’s largest free trade zone after 20 years of negotiations. The agreement includes a reference to the goals of the Paris accord.

Japan had pushed for the Osaka summit to become a landmark for progress on environmental issues, including tackling the global problem of plastic waste and recommitting to efforts to counter climate change.

Leaders said they’d “look into a wide range of clean technologies and approaches, including smart cities, ecosystem and community based approaches.”

The G-20 leaders have long sought to present a united front in promoting open markets and calling for smart policies to fend off threats to global economic growth. But the schisms over such issues as protectionism and migration are straining efforts to forge the usual consensus on a broad array of policy approaches and geopolitical issues.

The summit declaration did not take aim at protectionism but included a call for free, fair, non-discriminatory and open markets.

“Weren’t we originally seeking agreement on these principles? We need to go back to the original point so that we can remember what it was we were initially seeking,” Abe said. “This time, we managed to go back to this original point to come to agreeing on these important principles.”

Much of the spotlight of the two-day meeting focused on Trump.

Using Twitter, he raised a stir by inviting North Korea’s Kim Jong Un to shake hands during a visit the he plans to make to the heavily armed Demilitarized Zone between the Koreas on Sunday. “If Chairman Kim of North Korea sees this, I would meet him at the Border/DMZ just to shake his hand and say Hello(?)!”

North Korea’s First Vice Foreign Minister Choe Son Hui responded by saying it was a “very interesting suggestion,” and the meeting, if realized, would serve as “another meaningful occasion in further deepening the personal relations between the two leaders and advancing the bilateral relations.”

She said North Korea still hadn’t received an official proposal for the meeting from the United States.

Trump has at times found himself at odds with other leaders in such international events. China, meanwhile, has sought support for defending global trade agreements against Trump’s “America First” stance in gatherings like the G-20.

At the outset of their meeting, Trump told Xi he wants to “even it up in respect to trade,” and that he thought it would be very easy to do.

The two sides have levied billions of dollars’ worth of tariffs on each other’s products, and talks on resolving the longstanding issues had stalled in May.

Afterward, Trump said the talks were “back on track.” He said he had decided to hold off on imposing more tariffs on Chinese exports, while China planned to buy more American farm products.

China’s official Xinhua News Agency said Xi and Trump had agreed to restart trade talks “on the basis of equality and mutual respect.”

It’s unclear, however, if they have overcome the obstacles that brought the talks to a halt earlier.

“I think that realistically that the two sides, there are substantive issues that remain to be resolved – subsidies, state owned enterprise, reform, industrial policy in China – that go to the core of China’s economic system,” said Jacob Parker, vice president of U.S.-China Business Council China Operations.

“These are not issues that are going to be resolved quickly or overnight. And I think we have to expect that both sides are going to have to compromise a little bit. They can’t let perfect be the enemy of good,” Parker said.

Holding the summit in Osaka allowed Abe to perhaps raise his popularity among constituents in this manufacturing hub ahead of an election for the upper house of parliament in July. Abe’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party has suffered several setbacks in by-elections and his long tenure as prime minister is raising questions about who will succeed him.

While he upstaged his host, Trump did make a point of attending meetings like one early Saturday on women’s empowerment, where his daughter and adviser Ivanka Trump spoke.

She and others noted that the world economy would get a boost of up to $28 trillion by 2025 if women were on an equal economic footing and described improving the status of women as “smart economic and defense policy.”

The G-20 comprises Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Germany, France, Britain, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Canada, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United States and the European Union. Also attending the summit were the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Guinea, Senegal, Singapore and Vietnam.

Associated Press journalists Kaori Hitomi and Yves Dam Van in Osaka and Sam McNeil in Beijing contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump, left, meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping during a meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan, Saturday, June 29, 2019. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

+17

President Donald Trump, right, leans over to talk to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe during a G-20 summit event on women’s empowerment in Osaka, Japan, in Osaka, Japan, Saturday, June 29, 2019. Ivanka Trump is in the middle. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

+17

President Donald Trump, left, talks with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as they arrive for the G-20 summit session on women’s workforce participation, future of work, and aging societies in Osaka, Japan, in Osaka, Japan, Saturday, June 29, 2019. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

President Donald Trump, right, leans over to talk to Ivanka Trump as they sit next to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe during a G-20 summit event on women’s empowerment in Osaka, Japan, in Osaka, Japan, Saturday, June 29, 2019. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in, second from left, and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe shake hands prior to the session 3 at the G-20 summit in Osaka, western Japan, Saturday, June 29, 2019. (Kazuhiro Nogi/Pool Photo via AP)

President Donald Trump talks with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as they arrive for the G-20 summit session on women’s workforce participation, future of work, and aging societies in Osaka, Japan, in Osaka, Japan, Saturday, June 29, 2019. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan shake hands during their bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Osaka Saturday, June 29, 2019. (Yuri Kadobnov/Pool Photo via AP)

Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan attend their bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Osaka Saturday, June 29, 2019. (Yuri Kadobnov/Pool Photo via AP)

Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan attend their bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Osaka Saturday, June 29, 2019. (Yuri Kadobnov/Pool Photo via AP)

South Korean President Moon Jae-in, right, and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands during a meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan, Saturday, June 29, 2019. (Mikhail Klimentyev, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP)

South Korean President Moon Jae-in, right, and Russian President Vladimir Putin greet each other during a meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan, Saturday, June 29, 2019. (Mikhail Klimentyev, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP)

President Donald Trump, left, poses for a photo with Chinese President Xi Jinping during a meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan, Saturday, June 29, 2019. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Ocasio-Cortez splits with Pelosi on border bill with fiery response

What Happened to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal

Fact checking Ocasio-Cortez and Beto’s climate claims

Gaslighting: Abuse That Makes You Question Reality

How to deal with gaslighting | Ariel Leve

Gaslighting is an emotionally abusive tactic that makes the victim question their own sanity and perception of reality. In this important talk, Ariel Leve shares some of the life-saving strategies she adopted as a child to survive her mother’s gaslighting.

What’s REALLY Warming the Earth?

Natural Causes of Global Warming

Global Warming 101 | National Geographic

Climate Change: What’s So Alarming?

Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?

Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities…but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world’s leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change. Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2ylo1Yt

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Monday that illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers detained at a pair of U.S. Customs and Border Protection stations she visited are ‘drinking out of toilets’ – a claim an agency official quickly denied.

Speaking outside a Border Patrol station in Clint, Texas, she raged: ‘There’s abuse in these facilities.’

‘This was them knowing a congressional visit was coming. This was CBP on their best behavior. Telling people to drink out of the toilet.’

AOC said she ‘forced’ herself into a cell with detainees and one woman told her officers were waging ‘psychological warfare’ and that the agents often called them ‘wh***s.’

The 29-year-old congresswoman claimed officers laughed at migrants drinking out of toilets.

The inflammatory statements – including the suggestion that she witnessed toilet-drinking herself – came hours after a news story established the existence of a private Facebook group where current and former CBP agents distributed lewd illustrations of the Democratic socialist congresswoman from New York.

But a CBP official said Monday in the early evening that plumbing fixtures at the locations Ocasio-Cortez visited are standard-issue jail appliances with sinks that dispense safe drinking water attached to toilets in a single unit.

‘Of course that’s what we have,’ the official said. ‘No one is drinking toilet water. They’re drinking potable water from the sink attached to the toilet. It’s what you would find in every municipal jail in the United States.’

A photo filed in a federal court case in 2016 illustrates the setup in a Tucson, Arizona CBP holding facility. The official confirmed that it’s identical to what detainees at Texas border stations have access to.

Fuming: AOC describes the conditions in a migrant detention center to members of the media after 15 members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus gathered to tour Border Patrol facilities and migrant detention centers

Ocasio-Cortez said Monday that illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers detained at a pair of U.S. Customs and Border Protection stations she visited are ‘drinking out of toilets‘

The inflammatory statement – including the suggestion that she witnessed toilet-drinking herself – came hours after a news story established the existence of a private Facebook group where current and former CBP agents distributed lewd illustrations of the Democratic socialist congresswoman from New York

After this story was published, Ocasio-Cortez confirmed on Twitter that ‘[t]his was in fact the type of toilet we saw in the cell.’

She also claimed ‘there was just one’ in the cell she saw, and the sink portion was not functioning,’ adding that Rep. Ayanna Pressley ‘smartly tried to open the faucet, and nothing came out. So the women were told they could drink out of the bowl.’

Her other tweets were contradictory, with some suggesting she witnessed guards offering a toilet as a source of drinking water and others intimating that she had only heard a story about it from a detainee.

The claims were quickly rebutted by an official at CBP who said ‘no one is drinking toilet water’ at border holding facilities

DailyMail.com showed the CBP official this photo from a 2016 federal court filing, which depicts toilets inside a Phoenix CBP holding facility; the official confirmed that the Texas facilities have the same fixtures – which deliver clean drinking water from faucets above every toilet

Ocasio-Cortez tweeted in mid-afternoon that she didn’t have photos of what she saw because ‘CBP made us check our phones.’

She was one of more than a dozen Democratic members of Congress visiting the border facilities. At least one, Rep. Jouqin Castro of Texas, posted photos that he took inside.

A Washington Examiner reporter tweeted that two sources inside the building said Ocasio-Cortez ‘refused to tour the facility.’

The congresswoman had tweeted earlier that border agents were dismissive and ‘physically & sexually threatening’ toward her, and claimed in a statement to the press that women in the El Paso facility had no safe water to drink.

‘What we saw today was unconscionable,’ she told a waiting klatch of TV reporters. ‘No woman should ever be locked up in a pen, when they have done no harm to another human being. They should be given water. They should be given basic access to human rights.’

A reporter with the Washington Examiner wrote that two sources at the El Paso border station reported that Ocasio-Cortez refused to tour the facility in person on Monday

In her tweets she claimed ‘[o]fficers were keeping women in cells w/ no water & had told them to drink out of the toilets. This was them on their GOOD behavior in front of members of Congress.’

‘It’s not just the kids. It’s everyone. People drinking out of toilets, officers laughing in front of members Congress,’ the 29-year-old Democratic socialist added in another tweet.

‘I brought it up to their superiors. They said ‘officers are under stress & act out sometimes.’ No accountability.’

She called the experience ‘horrifying’ and classed it as ‘systemic cruelty w/ a dehumanizing culture that treats them like animals.’

A second member of Congress claimed in an online video that a single detainee in El Paso had told her she was advised to drink toilet water.

‘One woman said that the border patrol agent told her to – if she wanted water, just to drink from the toilet, California Democratic Rep. Judy Chu said.

Chu’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

California Rep. Judy Chu repeated Ocasio-Cortez’s claim in a video shot Monday, saying a detained woman had told the Democratic delegation that she was told to drink toilet water

Later Monday evening Ocasio-Cortez continued to tweet and share other people’s pictures of women inside the facilities.

‘Even if they let you in, these women told us CBP did a lot of ‘cleaning up’ before we arrived. They were moved into that room from outside tents before our arrival. They said they’d gone 15 days w/o a shower, & were allowed to start bathing 4 days ago (when visit was announced).

‘These officers felt brazen in there. While mgmt was telling us it was a ‘secure facility’ where *members of Congress* had to check their phones, we caught officers trying to sneak photos, laughing. CBP’s ‘good’ behavior was toxic. Imagine how they treat the women trapped inside.’

Alongside a photo of women inside a facility she wrote: ‘Here’s another photo from inside taken by @JoaquinCastrotx, where we’re trying to comfort women trapped in cells. This woman was telling me about her daughters who were taken from her – she doesn’t know where they’ve taken them. We held & listened to them. They were distraught.’

She later added: ‘Pro-concentration camp & Pro-Trump protestors tried to drown out our accounts. They yelled at Rashida Tlaib about pork when she talked about facilities. They called Joaquin Castro ‘traitor’ for denouncing family separation. @AyannaPressley was heroic, speaking truth to vitriol.’

‘And to these CBP officers saying they felt ‘threatened’ by me – They were literally discussing making a GoFundMe for an officer who attacked my on my tour. They confiscated my phone, and they were all armed. I’m 5’4′. They’re just upset I exposed their inhumane behavior.’

AOC shared the above tweets and photos on Monday evening as she further explained her experiences at the facilities on Monday

The indignant New Yorker had begun Monday defending herself against slurs from a private Facebook group frequented by current and former border agents, where leaked images showed members sharing lewd pictures of her and suggesting a heart-rending photo of a drowned migrant and his toddler daughter was staged.

Screen captures of some postings include a Photoshopped image depicting her performing oral sex on a migrant man, and another portraying President Donald Trump forcing her head into his lap for another sex act.

The group, first noted by the news website Pro Publica, has 9,500 members.

In one message thread, a member posted a now-famous Associated Press photograph of Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez and his 23-month-old daughter, Angie Valeria, face down in the Rio Grande after drowning during a failed attempt to reach the United States.

‘I HAVE NEVER SEEN FLOATERS LIKE THIS,’ the person wrote, suggesting it could be ‘another edited photo. We’ve all seen the dems and liberal parties do some pretty sick things.’

Ocasio-Cortez tweeted in mid-afternoon that she didn’t have photos of what she saw because ‘CBP made us check our phones’

The congresswoman had tweeted earlier that border agents were dismissive and ‘physically & sexually threatening’ toward her, and claimed in a statement to the press that women in the El Paso facility had no safe water to drink

The nonprofit news service Pro Publica published this image, which it said was posted to the Facebook group and depicted Ocasio-Cortez being forced to engage in oral sex with President Donald Trump

One member of the ‘I am 10-15’ group – it’s named for the radio code used when an illegal immigrant is detained – suggested that a news photograph of a man and his toddler daughter who drowned crossing the Rio Grande was staged

When Ocasio-Cortez and Texas Rep. Veronica Escobar announced a visit to a border station near El Paso, a group member proposed a bounty collected on GoFundMe for any agent willing to throw a burrito at them

The ’10-15′ group is described as a home for U.S. Border Patrol (BP) and Air and Marine Operations (AMO) agents

Another post said: ‘Let’s start a go fund me for one CTX agent brave enough to thrown a 10-15 burrito at one of these b***hes,’ one member wrote. ‘Who ever does it takes the pot of $$.’

’10-15′ is the law enforcement radio code that refers to the apprehension of an illegal immigrant. The Facebook group is called ‘I’m 10-15.’

Another group member, who Pro Publica reported was ‘apparently a patrol supervisor,’ wrote, ‘F**k the hoes.’

The computer illustration of her fellating a migrant man was captioned: ‘Lucky Illegal Immigrant Glory Hole Special Starring AOC.’

The second image, which portrayed Trump forcing her to perform a sex act on him, was posted along a comment that read: ‘That’s right b***hes. The masses have spoken and today democracy won. I have returned. To everyone who knows the real me and had my back I say thank you. To everyone else? This is what I have to say.’

The young lawmaker responded on Twitter.

‘This isn’t about ‘a few bad eggs. This is a violent culture,’ she said, insisting that she would still visit the border patrol station Monday afternoon.

‘They’re threatening violence on members of Congress. How do you think they’re treating caged children+families?’ she wrote.

Ocasio-Cortez said in a separate tweet that the reported 9.500 members of the ‘racist & sexually violent’ Facebook group represented ‘almost half’ of the Customs & Border Protection agents in the United States.

Pro Publica reported, however, that the group was also open to former agents. It’s unknown how large that group might be.

Share

+27

Ocasio-Cortez erupted with anger after seeing herself made the butt of lewd jokes by the border agents she was traveling to oversee

Matthew Klein, CBP’s Assistant Commissioner in the Office of Professional Responsibility, said in a statement that the agency was ‘aware of disturbing social media activity hosted on a private Facebook group that may include a number of CBP employees.’

‘CBP immediately informed DHS Office of the Inspector General and initiated an investigation,’ he said

Klein added that agency employees must adhere to strict standards of conduct ‘both on and off duty,’ which includes an order to ‘not make abusive, derisive, profane, or harassing statements or gestures, or engage in any other conduct evidencing hatred or invidious prejudice to or about one person or group on account of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age or disability.’

U.S. Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost said: ‘Any employees found to have violated our standards of conduct will be held accountable.’

“Now I’ve seen the inside of these facilities,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. “It’s not just the kids. It’s everyone. People drinking out of toilets, officers laughing in front of members Congress.”

She added, “I brought it up to their superiors. They said ‘officers are under stress & act out sometimes.’ No accountability.”

Ocasio-Cortez claimed that she “forced” herself into a cell with a group of female migrants and began speaking to them.

“One of them described their treatment at the hands of officers as ‘psychological warfare’ – waking them at odd hours for no reason, calling them wh*res, etc,” she said. “Tell me what about that is due to a ‘lack of funding?’”

The freshman legislator was planning to visit detention facilities in Clint — where the Trump administration “was denying children toothpaste and soap,” she said.

“This has been horrifying so far,” Ocasio–Cortez concluded. “It is hard to understate the enormity of the problem. We’re talking systemic cruelty w/ a dehumanizing culture that treats them like animals.”

SEE ALSO

AOC to visit border despite reported CBP threats against her

A CBP official denied the toilet accusations on Monday, insisting that the locations Ocasio-Cortez visited have standard-issue jail-type appliances with sinks that dispense safe drinking water attached to toilets in a single unit.

“‘No one is drinking toilet water,” the official said. “They’re drinking potable water from the sink attached to the toilet.” It’s what you would find in every municipal jail in the United States.”

Ocasio-Cortez has accused CBP agents of making threats to her life on social media — saying a “secret Facebook group” of 9,500 officers discussed making a GoFundMe to harm her and the other Dems during their visits Monday.

“‘If you want water, just drink from a toilet.’ That’s what border patrol told one thirsty woman we met on today’s #DemsAtTheBorder trip,” Chu tweeted, along with a video in which she described the conditions.

“What we saw was appalling and disgusting,” the congresswoman said. “There seriously has to be some changes.”

Monday’s border visit was met with outrage from local Trump supporters, who were caught on video heckling the Democratic lawmakers in both English and Spanish as they attempted to hold a press conference.

“Go take care of your country!” shouted one man, who repeatedly yelled “Trump 2020” with several others.

“You guys are retarded!” he added. “Cry me a river!”

Ocasio-Cortez, who spoke at the presser, got told to “go back to New York City” at one point.

Story 1: Dirt Desperate Democrats in Questioning Michael Cohen — Rehash Old Stories and Lies About Trump That Are Not Crimes — More False Accusations With No Evidence — No Evidence of Trump/Russian Collusion — No Love Child — No Porn Videos — No Drug Use — No Crimes — No Golden Showers — No Credibility — No Impeachment — Videos —

Michael Cohen revealed on Wednesday that President Donald Trump is being investigated for ‘other wrongdoing’ although he refused to divulge details because of the ongoing investigation.

He made his comments during his nearly 5 hours of testifying before the House Oversight and Reform Committee – his second out of three appearances this week on Capitol Hill and the only one before cameras.

Cohen, the president’s former personal lawyer, revealed the last time he had contact with Trump or one of his team was ‘within two months’ of the April 2018 FBI raid on Cohen’s home, office and hotel suite.

Michael Cohen revealed that President Trump is being investigated for ‘other wrongdoing’ although he refused to divulge details

President Trump is in Vietnam for his second summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un

Democratic Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi asked Cohen what he was told during that contact.

Cohen declined to offer details.

‘Unfortunately, this topic is actually something that’s being investigated right now by the Southern District of New York and I’ve been asked by them not to discuss and not to talk about these issues,’ Cohen replied.

The Southern District of New York was the lead prosecutor in Cohen’s case and is probing Trump’s business dealings.

‘Is there any other wrongdoing or illegal act that you are aware of regarding Donald Trump that we haven’t yet discussed today?’ Krishnamoorthi inquired.

‘Yes,’ Cohen responded. ‘And again, those are part of the investigation that’s currently being looked at by the Southern District of New York.’

Cohen also implicated Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, as part of the conspiracy to offer hush money payments to women during the 2016 campaign.

He revealed the president’s son signed a check to fund illegal hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels, potentially placing Trump Jr. in legal trouble.

One of Cohen’s eight guilty pleas was to campaign finance violations tied to the payoff to Daniels.

A ‘hush money’ payment to Daniels during the 2016 race with funds originating from a home equity line of credit Cohen obtained – at Trump’s direction, he claimed – was part of the money Trump repaid in a series of $35,000 checks to Cohen that continued during his first year in office.

Cohen provided two checks to the House Oversight and Reform Committee as evidence.

One check provided to the committee was signed by Trump himself in August 2017, more than six months into his administration, and issued from what Cohen says is the president’s personal account.

The other is from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust – and signed by both Donald Trump Jr. and Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg.

A Trump Organization official told DailyMail.com on Wednesday that Donald Trump Jr. was unaware when he signed the check that it was part of a repayment plan for Cohen’s hush-money outlay.

Cohen said Wednesday that the money ‘was declared to be a retainer for services’ although ‘there is no retainer agreement.’

Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna drilled down on the payments, saying they were the ‘smoking gun’ showing ‘garden variety financial fraud’ at the president’s business.

Cohen told the House Oversight and Reform Committee that as a lawyer for Daniels (right) threatened to go public with her claims of a sexual affair more than a decade earlier, Trump (left, in Vietnam on Wednesday) ordered him to find a way to funnel the payment to her via that attorney

Michael Cohen offered financial documents to the committee and said he did not know if the president’s taxes were under audit

Cohen has provided members of Congress with two checks, one signed by the president and the other by his son Donald Jr, which he says was reimbursement for payments meant to keep Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal quiet; President Trump’s check was written after he had been president for more than a half-year

The Donald Trump Jr.-signed check was dated in March 2017, and was drawn on a family Trust; A Trump Organization official told DailyMail.com on Wednesday that Trump Jr. was unaware when he signed it that it was part of a repayment plan for Cohen’s hush-money outlay

Cohen replied in the affirmative.

‘Are you telling us, Mr. Cohen, that the president directed transactions in conspiracy with Allen Weisselberg and his son, Donald Trump Jr., as part of a criminal conspiracy of financial fraud?’ Khanna followed up. ‘Is that your testimony today?’

‘Yes,’ Cohen said.

Cohen did decline to say whether he believed Trump Jr. was being investigated by federal prosecutors.

Cohen also indicated Trump could have committed financial fraud when he faced questioning from freshman Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

He revealed additional details on how Trump provided insurance companies with financials that exaggerated his assets and wealth but wanted to reduce his real estate taxes – and if the president lied on insurance and IRS forms to make this happen, that would be fraud.

Ocasio-Cortez stayed on financial issues for nearly all her questioning as she laid the groundwork for the committee to continue and expand its investigation of the president’s business empire.

WASHINGTON (AP) — He carried out the boss’ wishes. He understood “the code.” He was blindly loyal — but now he’s considered a rat.

Donald Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen spoke at length Wednesday about his life in the president’s inner circle, but the most vivid descriptor came in just six words. Trump ran his operation “much like a mobster would do,” Cohen said.

In Cohen’s scathing testimony at a House committee hearing, he repeatedly described Trump, the onetime head of a family business, like a mob boss minus the body count: quick to bully and expecting others to do his dirty work. Cohen described himself as a consigliere, telling lawmakers he did Trump’s bidding for years, intimidating maybe 500 people and lying to scores, including the first lady. But Trump never directly told him to do it, he said.

“He doesn’t give you questions, he doesn’t give you orders,” Cohen said. “He speaks in a code, and I understand the code because I’ve been around him for a decade.”

Cohen is facing a three-year sentence for lying to Congress in 2017 and other charges. He came back to Capitol Hill this week, worrying for his family’s safety, but claiming he would no longer lie for his former boss and was ready to spill.

Trump has denied the allegations against him and called Cohen a liar. Even as he’s done so, he’s used mob speak.

“Remember, Michael Cohen only became a ‘Rat’ after the FBI did something which was absolutely unthinkable & unheard of until the Witch Hunt was illegally started,” Trump tweeted in December. “They BROKE INTO AN ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,” he wrote, referring to the raid on Cohen’s office that touched off the now-disbarred lawyer’s eventual guilty plea.

During the hearing, Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly even likened Cohen to Joe Valachi, an American gangster known as the “first rat” whose 1960s testimony before Congress lead to the eventual dismantling of organized crime.

“This Congress historically has relied on all kinds of shady figures who turned,” Connolly said.

It’s hardly the first time Trump’s orbit has drawn mob comparisons.

In his book “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership,” former FBI director James Comey said he got the sinking feeling that Trump’s operation functioned like the mob. Former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe spun a similar story, and a former agent and former federal prosecutor tweeted Wednesday that Trump’s tactics as detailed by Cohen sure felt a lot like the mafia.

There’s even a “Godfather: Part II” reference in the indictment by the special prosecutor investigating Trump’s possible ties to Russia. Trump confidant Roger Stone told an associate to pull a “Frank Pentangeli” before a House committee, the indictment says. In the film, Pentangeli, an associate of the Corleone crime family, lies to protect the family during congressional testimony.

Plea bargaining in the United States is very common; the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are settled by plea bargain rather than by a jury trial.[1][2] They have also been increasing in frequency—they rose from 84% of federal cases in 1984 to 94% by 2001.[3] Plea bargains are subject to the approval of the court, and different States and jurisdictions have different rules. Game theory has been used to analyze the plea bargaining decision.[4]

The constitutionality of plea bargaining was established by Brady v. United States in 1970,[5] although the Supreme Court warned that plea incentives which were sufficiently large or coercive as to over-rule defendants’ abilities to act freely, or used in a manner giving rise to a significant number of innocent people pleading guilty, might be prohibited or lead to concerns over constitutionality.[6]Santobello v. New York added that when plea bargains are broken, legal remedies exist.[7]

Several features of the American justice system tend to promote plea bargaining. The adversarial nature of the system puts judges in a passive role, in which they are completely dependent upon the parties to develop the factual record and cannot independently discover information with which to assess the strength of the case against the defendant. The parties thus can control the outcome of the case by exercising their rights or bargaining them away. The lack of compulsory prosecution also gives prosecutors greater discretion. And the inability of crime victims to mount a private prosecution and their limited ability to influence plea agreements also tends to encourage plea bargaining.[8] Prosecutors have been described as monopsonists.[9]

History and constitutionality

Plea bargaining has existed for centuries; in older legal systems convictions were at times routinely procured by confession, and laws existed covering such criminal confessions, although by the 18th century inducements had been forbidden in English Law to prevent miscarriage of justice.[10] Accordingly, early US plea bargain history led to courts’ permitting withdrawal of pleas and rejection of plea bargains, although such arrangements continued to happen behind the scenes.[10] A rise in the scale and scope of criminal law led to plea bargaining’s gaining new acceptance in the early 20th century, as courts and prosecutors sought to address an overwhelming influx of cases:[10]

[F]ederal prosecutions under the Prohibition Act terminated in 1930 had become nearly eight times as many as the total number of all pending federal prosecutions in 1914. In a number of urban districts the enforcement agencies maintain that the only practicable way of meeting this situation with the existing machinery of the federal courts … is for the United States Attorneys to make bargains with defendants or their counsel whereby defendants plead guilty to minor offenses and escape with light penalties.[3][10]

However, even though over 90% of convictions were based upon plea bargaining by 1930, courts remained reluctant for some time to endorse these when appealed.[10]

Modern history (c. 1950 onward)

The constitutionality of plea bargaining and its legal footing were established by Brady v. United States (1970).[5] The U.S. Supreme Court warned, in the same decision, that this was conditional only and required appropriate safeguards and usage—namely that plea incentives so large or coercive as to overrule defendants’ abilities to act freely, or used in a manner giving rise to a significant number of innocent people pleading guilty, might be prohibited or lead to concerns over constitutionality.[6] Previously, the Court had held in United States v. Jackson that a law was unconstitutional that had the effect of imposing undue fear in a defendant (in that case, the fear of death) to the point it discouraged the exercise of a constitutional right (the 6th Amendment covering the right to a jury trial), and also forced the defendant to act as an unwilling witness against himself in violation of the 5th amendment.[11] The Court stated that:

[T]he plea is more than an admission of past conduct; it is the defendant’s consent that judgment of conviction may be entered without a trial—a waiver of his right to trial before a jury or a judge. Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.[12]

The ruling distinguished Brady from other prior cases emphasizing improper confessions, concluding: “we cannot hold that it is unconstitutional for the State to extend a benefit to a defendant who in turn extends a substantial benefit to the State and who demonstrates by his plea that he is ready and willing to admit his crime and to enter the correctional system in a frame of mind that affords hope for success in rehabilitation over a shorter period of time than might otherwise be necessary.” It laid down the following conditions for a plea to be valid:[13]

Defendant must be “fully aware of the direct consequences, including the actual value of any commitments made to him”

Plea must not be “induced by threats (or promises to discontinue improper harassment), misrepresentation (including unfulfilled or unfulfillable promises), or perhaps by promises that are by their nature improper as having no proper relationship to the prosecutor’s business (e. g. bribes)”

Pleas entered would not become invalid later merely due to a wish to reconsider the judgment which led to them, or better information about the Defendant’s or the State’s case, or the legal position.

Plea bargaining “is no more foolproof than full trials to the court or to the jury. Accordingly, we take great precautions against unsound results. […] We would have serious doubts about this case if the encouragement of guilty pleas by offers of leniency substantially increased the likelihood that defendants, advised by competent counsel, would falsely condemn themselves. But our view is to the contrary and is based on our expectations that courts will satisfy themselves that pleas of guilty are voluntarily and intelligently made by competent defendants with adequate advice of counsel and that there is nothing to question the accuracy and reliability of the defendants’ admissions”.

The ruling in Brady does not discuss “situation[s] where the prosecutor or judge, or both, deliberately employ their charging and sentencing powers to induce a particular defendant to tender a plea of guilty. In Brady’s case there is no claim that the prosecutor threatened prosecution on a charge not justified by the evidence or that the trial judge threatened Brady with a harsher sentence if convicted after trial in order to induce him to plead guilty.”

Litigation is pending that could determine whether alleged victims of federal crime have a right to be informed by a U.S. Attorney before plea bargains are entered with a defendant.[14][15]

Federal system

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are followed in federal cases and have been created to ensure a standard of uniformity in all cases decided in the federal courts. A two- or three-level offense level reduction is usually available for those who accept responsibility by not holding the prosecution to the burden of proving its case.

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide for two main types of plea agreements. An 11(c)(1)(B) agreement does not bind the court; the prosecutor’s recommendation is merely advisory, and the defendant cannot withdraw his plea if the court decides to impose a sentence other than what was stipulated in the agreement. An 11(c)(1)(C) agreement does bind the court once the court accepts the agreement. When such an agreement is proposed, the court can reject it if it disagrees with the proposed sentence, in which case the defendant has an opportunity to withdraw his plea.[16]

State systems

Plea bargains are so common in the Superior Courts of California that the Judicial Council of California has published an optional seven-page form (containing all mandatory advisements required by federal and state law) to help prosecutors and defense attorneys reduce such bargains into written plea agreements.[17]

In California, plea bargaining is sometimes used in proceedings for involuntary commitment for mental disorder. Some individuals alleged to be dangerous to self and/or dangerous to others bargain to be classified instead as merely “gravely disabled.”[18]

Controversy

The use of plea bargaining has inspired some controversy over issues such as its potentially coercive effect on incarcerated defendants, defendants who have been charged with more serious offenses than the facts warrant, and innocent defendants, all of whom might feel pressured to enter into a plea bargain to avoid the more serious consequences that would result from conviction.

A theory was put forth that an informal courtroom work group is secretly formed between judge, defense attorney and prosecutor, wherein the goal then becomes to speed cases through rather than to ensure that justice is served.[19]

Coercive effect

Plea bargaining is also criticized, particularly outside the United States, on the grounds that its close relationship with rewards, threats and coercion potentially endangers the correct legal outcome.[20]

In the book Presumed Guilty: When Innocent People Are Wrongly Convicted (1991), author Martin Yant discusses the use of coercion in plea bargaining.[21]

Even when the charges are more serious, prosecutors often can still bluff defense attorneys and their clients into pleading guilty to a lesser offense.

As a result, people who might have been acquitted because of lack of evidence, but also who are in fact truly innocent, will often plead guilty to the charge. Why? In a word, fear. And the more numerous and serious the charges, studies have shown, the greater the fear. That explains why prosecutors sometimes seem to file every charge imaginable against defendants.

The theoretical work based on the prisoner’s dilemma is one reason why, in many countries, plea bargaining is forbidden. Often, precisely the prisoner’s dilemma scenario applies: it is in the interest of both suspects to confess and testify against the other suspect, irrespective of the innocence of the accused. Arguably, the worst case is when only one party is guilty—here, the innocent one is unlikely to confess, while the guilty one is likely to confess and testify against the innocent.

Judicial efficiency

The United States Supreme Court has recognized plea bargaining as both an essential and desirable part of the criminal justice system.[22] The benefits of plea-bargaining are said to be obvious: the relief of court congestion, alleviation of the risks and uncertainties of trial, and its information gathering value.[23]

…ending plea bargaining has put responsibility back into every level of our system: police did better investigating; prosecutors and lawyers began preparing their cases better; lazy judges were compelled to spend more time in court and control their calendars more efficiently. Most importantly, justice was served—and criminals began to realize that they could not continue their arrogant manipulation of a paper-tiger court system.

Another argument against plea bargaining is that it may not actually reduce the costs of administering justice. For example, if a prosecutor has only a 25% chance of winning his case and sending the defendant away to prison for 10 years, he may make a plea agreement for a one-year sentence; but if plea bargaining is unavailable, he may drop the case completely.[26]

Plea bargaining may allow prosecutors to allocate their resources more efficiently, such that they may direct more time and resources to the trial of suspects charged with serious offenses.[27]

Impact on average sentences

The shadow-of-trial argument asserts that in the aggregate, plea agreements merely reflect the outcome that would have transpired had the case gone to trial. For example, if the accused faces 10 years and has a 50% chance of losing in court, then an agreement will result in a five-year sentence, less some amount deducted for saving the government the cost of trial. Theoretically, the shadow-of-trial should work even better in criminal cases than in civil cases, because civil judgments are discretionary, while criminal judgments are often regulated by mandatory minima and sentencing guidelines, making sentences more predictable.

A counter-argument is that criminal sentencing laws are “lumpy”, in that the sentencing ranges are not as precise as the dollars-and-cents calibration that can be achieved in civil case settlements. Furthermore, because some defendants facing small amounts of prison time are jailed pending trial, they may find it in their interests to plead guilty so as to be sentenced to time served, or in any event to end up serving less time than they would serve waiting for trial.[28] Outcomes in criminal cases are also made less predictable by the fact that, while a plaintiff in a civil case has a financial incentive to seek the largest judgment possible, a prosecutor does not necessarily have an incentive to pursue the most severe sentence possible.[29]

Constitutionality

Some legal scholars argue that plea bargaining is unconstitutional because it takes away a person’s right to a trial by jury.[30] Justice Hugo Black once noted that, in America, the defendant “has an absolute, unqualified right to compel the State to investigate its own case, find its own witnesses, prove its own facts, and convince the jury through its own resources. Throughout the process, the defendant has a fundamental right to remain silent, in effect challenging the State at every point to ‘Prove it!'”[31] It is argued that plea bargaining is inconsistent with limits imposed on the powers of the police and prosecutors by the Bill of Rights. This position has been rejected by the nation’s courts.[32]

Reported by the joint conference committee onDecember 1, 1971; agreed to by the Senate onDecember 14, 1971 (Agreed, in lieu of S.Rept. 92–580) and by the House on January 19, 1972 (334-20, in lieu of H.Rept. 92–752)

In 1974, the Act was amended to place legal limits on the campaign contributions and expenditures. The 1974 amendments also created the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

The Act was amended again in 1976, in response to the provisions ruled unconstitutional by Buckley v. Valeo, including the structure of the FEC and the limits on campaign expenditures, and again in 1979 to allow parties to spend unlimited amounts of hard money on activities like increasing voter turnout and registration. In 1979, the FEC ruled that political parties could spend unregulated or “soft” money for non-federal administrative and party building activities. Later, this money was used for candidate-related issue ads, which led to a substantial increase in soft money contributions and expenditures in elections. This in turn led to passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”), effective on January 1, 2003, banning soft money expenditure by parties. Some of the legal limits on giving of “hard money” were also changed by BCRA.

In addition to limiting the size of contributions to candidates and political parties, FECA also requires campaigns and political committees to report the names, addresses, and occupations of donors of more than $200.

The FECA contains an express preemption clause. The FECA expressly preempts state and federal law with respect to federal elections.

In 1971, Congress consolidated its earlier reform efforts in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), instituting more stringent disclosure requirements for federal candidates, political parties and Political action committees (PACs). Still, without a central administrative authority, the campaign finance laws were difficult to enforce.

Government subsidies for federal elections, originally proposed by President Roosevelt in 1907, began to take shape as part of the 1971 law, as Congress established the income tax checkoff to provide for the financing of Presidential general election campaigns and national party conventions. Amendments to the Internal Revenue Code in 1974 established the matching fund program for Presidential primary campaigns.

Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs. The 1974 amendments also established an independent agency, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce the law, facilitate disclosure and administer the public funding program. The FEC opened its doors in 1975 and administered the first publicly funded Presidential election in 1976.

In 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court struck down several key provisions of the 1974 amendments to the Act, including limits on spending by candidate campaigns, limits on the ability of citizens to spend money independently of a campaign, and limits on the amount of money a candidate could donate to his or her own campaign. Buckley v. Valeo also substantially narrowed the category of independent political expenditures subject to mandatory donor disclosure.

Congress made further amendments to the FECA in 1976 to conform the law with the ruling in Buckley v. Valeo. Major amendments were also made in 1979 to streamline the disclosure process and expand the role of political parties.

Donald Trump’s talks with Kim Jong-un ended abruptly on Thursday as the president said he was forced to walk away after the North Korean dictator demanded that all sanctions be lifted in return for giving up only some of his nukes.

Trump said the final snag that caused the sudden breakdown was over sanctions – and Kim’s push to have all of them lifted in exchange for a concession Trump and his secretary of state could not live with.

‘Sometimes you have to walk away,’ Trump told reporters at a press conference in Hanoi that was abruptly moved up after a breakdown in talks.

The president expressed his hope that the two leaders would meet again, but acknowledged: ‘It might be soon, it might not be for a long time. I can’t tell you.’

Meanwhile, the president blasted longtime fixer Michael Cohen, saying he ‘lied’ after his former lawyer delivered bombshell testimony. The president mostly avoided the topic by calling on a series of members of the foreign press corps he did not recognize rather than White House reporters preparing to quiz him on the crimes Cohen claims he witnessed.

‘Person in the front go ahead,’ Trump said, calling on one of many members of the foreign press corps covering the event.

President Trump abruptly ended talks with Kim Jong-un in Hanoi on Thursday, telling reporters that the North Korean leader had demanded that all sanctions be lifted in return for only getting rid of part of his nuclear stockpile, so he walked away

Trump said that he remains on good terms with Kim and continued to tout the ‘enormous potential’ of North Korea, not notably said there were no plans for a next summit meeting.

Trump candidly revealed that Kim wanted the sanctions off, but was not willing to give up his array of nukes, missiles, and additional sites he only alluded to vaguely.

‘Basically they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety and we couldn’t do that,’ the president said. ‘They were willing to de-nuke a large portion of the areas that we wanted but we couln’t give up all of the sacntions for that.

‘We had to walk away from that particularly suggestion. We had to walk away from that,’ Trump said.

‘It was about sanctions. They wanted sanctions lifted but they weren’t willing to do an area that we wanted,’ Trump said.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo added: ‘We have been working for weeks to find a path forward so we could make a big step at this summit.

‘We made progress and even more progress when the two leaders met over the last 48, or 72 hours.

‘But we didn’t get all the way. We didn’t get something that made sense for the United States.’

The first signs of a rupture came when the White House suddenly made changes to the president’s schedule.

A planned lunch meeting never happened, although a table was set with a floral centerpiece and menus folded inside napkins.

Reporters on hand to cover it were told to move to another location.

Describing talks, which ran from a Wednesday dinner through mid-day Thursday, Trump said: ‘We spent pretty much all day with Kim Jong-un, who is – he’s quite a guy and quite a character. And I think our relationship is very strong.’

Both Trump and Pompeo said there was a willingness on both sides to keep talking, but revealed that no follow-up summit has been scheduled.

Trump said that in the meantime, Kim was ‘not going to do testing of rockets and nuclear. I trust him and I take him at his word.’

He indicated that Kim was willing to make concessions related to the Yongbyon facility where his regime enriches Plutonium, but it wasn’t enough.

‘That facility while very big, it wasn’t enough to do what we were doing. We had to have more than that,’ said Trump.

+48

Trump insisted that his relationship with Kim remains ‘warm’ and that he sees ‘great potential’ in North Korea, but added that sometimes ‘you have to be willing to walk away from a deal’ if it’s not the right one

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo added that his team had been working with North Korea ‘for weeks’ to try and achieve a deal and that Trump and Kim made more progress towards a deal, but ‘we didn’t get all the way’

+48

President Donald Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un resumed their summit in Hanoi on Thursday morning local time – as Trump predicted a ‘fantastic success’ but Kim said it was ‘too early’ to say they would reach a deal

Trump once again asserted that he was in ‘no rush’ to make an agreement – following an early report by NBC that the US was prepared to back away from a demand that North Korea provide a full accounting of its nuclear weapons programs

Trump said that Kim was willing to dismantle the Yongbyon nuclear research facility if the US lifted sanctions, but said Kim was unwilling to make a deal on other facilities and weapons, forcing an end to the talks.

Trump’s remarks made clear there other sites the U.S. identified that Kim wanted to maintain.

‘We have that setup so we would be able to do that very easily. The inspections on North Korea will take place, and if we do something with them, we have a schedule setup that is very good. We know things … about certain places and certain sites. There are sites that people don’t know about that we know about. We would be able to do inspections we think very, very successfully,’ Trump said.

Some critics had raised alarms before the summit that Trump and Kim would reach a deal that did not allow for verification.

Asked whether it was premature to hold the summit now, Trump said he would ‘much rather do it right than do it fast’ and added that he ‘could have signed something today’ but didn’t feel it was the right deal.

But America and North Korea remain in a position ‘to do something very special’ together, he said.

The recognition that no joint statement had been reached came despite weeks of advance negotiation. A range of compromise gestures had been circulating for days in media reports.

The lack of agreement came after Trump repeatedly hailed a ‘special relationship’ between the two men, and stressed their personal bond as a reason progress might be possible.

After the two men’s historic summit in Singapore in June, they both signed a joint statement – although critics blasted it for failing to include a timetable or verification members in its undefined call for denuclearization.

On Thursday afternoon, Sanders suddenly told reporters traveling with the president before 1 pm local time that talks would wrap up within about half an hour, throwing the event’s schedule into turmoil.

She declined to say initial there would be a signing ceremony, though one had been on an earlier White House schedule. Only minutes before Trump was scheduled to face the press did she acknowledge that there would not be one.

But reporters who were on hand to cover it were relocated to buses – indicating that the event was most likely scrapped.

The public White House schedule had listed a ‘Joint Agreement Signing Ceremony’ with the chairman of the state affairs commission of DPRK, set for 2:05 pm local time.

Trump was to have fielded questions at 4 pm, right before leaving Vietnam, but it got moved up to 2 pm.

A planned lunch between the two men was scrapped so they could ‘keep negotiating,’ Bloomberg News reported.

The U.S. dollar and South Korean stock market both fell on the news that no deal had been reached.

The multiple signs of tension came after a public event hours earlier where the two leaders once again smiled for the cameras – and Kim even took a few questions from U.S. media and expressed openness toward a step in normalization of relations.

The North Korean dictator said he is open to the idea of a US liaison office in Pyongyang in a major development during the historic nuclear summit with President Donald Trump.

Kim revealed his stance on the issue – one of several negotiating points in Hanoi – when the absolute leader submitted to a few unscripted questions from American media members.

In another comment, he revealed his stated disposition on denuclearization – although without saying what it would take to get him there.

‘If I was not, I wouldn’t be here,’ he said in his native Korean, while seated alongside Trump.

The two world leaders resumed their summit in Hanoi on Thursday morning local time – as Trump predicted a ‘fantastic success’ but Kim said it was ‘too early’ to say they would reach a deal.

Trump once again asserted that he was in ‘no rush’ to make an agreement – following an early report by NBC that the US was prepared to back away from a demand that North Korea provide a full accounting of its nuclear weapons programs.

‘I think we’ll be together a lot over the years,’ Trump said. ‘I can’t speak for today but over a little bit longer term .. we’re going to have a fantastic success.’

Trump and Jong Un smile during a meeting at the second US-North Korea summit at the Sofitel Legend Metropole hotel in Hanoi

Trump listens as he meets North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on Thursday in Hanoi

During an exchange with the media, a reporter asked Kim if he was ready for a U.S. liaison office in Pyongyang – considered a step toward normalization of relations. At first a North Korean aide tried to cut him off, but Trump – who has tangled with the press – intervened.

‘That’s actually an interesting question. I would like to actually hear that answer,’ Trump said.

Kim responded: ‘That is something that is welcomeable.’

Trump then said the idea was a ‘great thing.’

A reporter asked Kim in Korean if he was confident of an agreement. Kim responded in Korean: ”It’s too early to say. I would not say I’m pessimistic.’

‘I have a feeling that good results will come,’ Kim added.

Trump also predicted spending more time with the North Korean dictator.

‘And, I’m sure over the years we’ll be together a lot, and I think we’ll also be together after the fact, meaning after the deal is made. We had very good discussions last night at dinner, and the pre-dinner was very good. And, there were a lot of great ideas being thrown about,’ Trump said.

Trump once again called the relationship between the two men ‘very strong’.

‘So, I can’t speak necessarily for today, but I can say that this, a little bit longer term, and over a period of time, I know we’re going to have a fantastic success with respect to Chairman Kim and North Korea. They’re going to have an economic powerhouse.’

Trump predicted: ‘I think it’s going to be something very special.’

‘I am in no rush. We don’t want the testing, and we’ve developed something very special with respect to that,’ Trump said, without revealing details, as the two men moved toward an expected joint statement.

At one point after their first meeting Wednesday, the two men took a stroll by the hotel pool, with photographers ready to capture the moment

They walked along with two interpreters beneath palm trees as Kim greeted Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and general and spy chief Kim Yong Chol

At one point after their first meeting Wednesday, the two men took a stroll by the hotel pool, with photographers ready to capture the moment.

They walked along with two interpreters beneath palm trees as Kim greeted Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and general and spy chief Kim Yong Chol. Reporters covering the event passed National Security Advisor John Bolton, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, and Trump aide Dan Scavino, who didn’t appear to be joining the second meeting with staff.

Trump was back to trying his hand at diplomacy after the president’s ex-fixer Michael Cohen dominated headlines with his day of bombshell testimony against his former boss.

Cohen’s appearances have shadowed the president’s appearances, and Trump even tweeted to attack his longtime fixer as a ‘liar’ shortly before he delivered bombshell testimony in the Capitol claiming Trump participated in a criminal conspiracy involving the hush payment to Stormy Daniels.

Trump and Kim met for their second time at the French colonial-era Metropole hotel, where they had dined Wednesday night.

Reporters covering the event passed National Security Advisor John Bolton, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, and Trump aide Dan Scavino, who didn’t appear to be joining the second meeting with staff

Trump’s motorcade leaves the J.W. Marriot hotel during the second US-North Korea summit

The motorcade of Jong Un is driven in Hanoi, Vietnam, on Thursday, ahead of the second summit

Before they sat down, NBC reported the U.S. was no longer insisting as a negotiating position that North Korea provide a ‘full accounting of its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs’ – which would amount to a major concession.

Trump hailed ‘a very special relationship’ when he met Kim in the Vietnamese capital of Hanoi on Wednesday and said he was satisfied with the pace of talks, despite some criticism they were not moving quickly enough.

‘Great meetings’ and a ‘Very good dialogue,’ Trump said on Twitter after dinner with Kim at the French-colonial-era Metropole hotel while the White House said the two planned to sign a ‘joint agreement’ after further talks on Thursday.

The White House has given no indication of what the signing ceremony might involve, although the two sides’ discussions have included the possibility of a political statement to declare the 1950-53 Korean War over, which some critics see as premature.

They have also discussed partial denuclearization measures, such as allowing inspectors to observe the dismantling of North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear reactor, U.S. and South Korean officials say.

Summit day two: North Korea released this picture of Trump shaking hands with dictator Kim Jong Un on the first day of their talks in Hanoi, Vietnam, on Wednesday

All eyes watching: Michael Cohen’s

Greeting: Trump and Kim shake hands at the top of their meeting in Hanoi – which was followed by a ‘quick dinner’

U.S. concessions could include opening liaison offices or clearing the way for inter-Korean projects, but critics say Trump risks squandering vital leverage if he gives away too much, too quickly.

The Hanoi summit was Trump’s second with Kim since an inconclusive meeting in Singapore in June that produced much fanfare but little substance and there had been little sign of concrete progress since.

The U.S. president nevertheless appeared upbeat with Kim even as his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen testified at a congressional hearing in Washington, calling Trump a ‘conman’ who knew in advance about the release of stolen emails aimed at hurting his Democratic rival in the 2016 election campaign.

Facing mounting pressure at home over investigations into Russian meddling in the election, Trump has sought a big win by trying to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for promises of peace and development, a foreign policy goal that has confounded multiple predecessors.

Trump told Kim on Wednesday he felt the first summit was ‘very successful’. ‘Some people would like to see it go quicker; I´m satisfied; you´re satisfied, we want to be happy with what we’re doing.’

The leaders exchanged views at dinner with the aim of achieving comprehensive and ground-breaking results from their summit, Kim’s state news agency KCNA said on Thursday.

‘Sincere and in-depth views were exchanged to bring about a comprehensive and groundbreaking outcome,’ it said.

The two men had met in the Vietnamese capital in front of a bank of six flags from each nation, for the first meeting for the pair since their historic summit in Singapore in June.

‘It’s an honor to be with Chairman Kim. It’s an honor to be together,’ said Trump, who repeatedly praised his counterpart.

The admiration may be mutual. In one remark, Kim praised Trump’s ‘courageous decision’ to open dialogue, according to how his translator recounted it.

In introductory remarks, Trump did much of the talking – and one again dangled the promise of prosperity for North Korea, and addressed critics who noted their initial joint statement was vague and hard to measure.

‘It’s great to be with you. We had a very successful first summit,’ Trump said. ‘I felt it was very successful. Some people would like to see it go quicker. I’m satisfied, you’re satisfied. We want to be happy with what we’re doing.’

‘I thought the first summit was a great success, I think this one hopefully will be equal or greater than the first,’ the president added.

As he has repeatedly, Trump pointed to personal chemistry with the reclusive leader of the family-led one-party dictatorship – although his secretary of state says North Korea is still a nuclear threat, having tested a hydrogen bomb and months ago conducted a skein of missile tests.

‘We made a lot of progress and I think the biggest progress was our relationship is really a good one,’ Trump said.

The two leaders smiled as they were seated before dinner

People walk past a TV broadcasting a news report on a meeting between North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and U.S. President Donald Trump, in Seoul, South Korea, February 27, 2019

Trump repeatedly hailed the personal relationship between the two men

Trump complemented a New York Times photographer in one of many asides to Kim

In a spat with the White House, two reporters who had earlier asked Trump questions were not permitted to witness the start of dinner

Dangling economic enticements that he hopes will persuade Kim to give up nuclear weapons his nation has been developing for years, Trump said: ‘I think that your country has tremendous economic potential. Unbelievable. Unlimited,’ Trump said, seated across from Kim.

Both men smiled before cameras as they exchanged a handshake.

A reporter asked Trump about former lawyer Michael Cohen’s bombshell testimony in Congress that calls Trump a ‘conman.’ Trump shook his head and didn’t respond.

That may not have gone over well with the White House staff. At a subsequent photo-op, two wire service reporters were excluded, including the one who had asked about Cohen, whose bombshell testimony touched on Stormy Daniels, a Trump Moscow tower project, and Wikileaks.

According to a statement issued by White House press secretary Sarah Sanders: ‘Due to the sensitive nature of the meetings we have limited the pool for the dinner to a smaller group, but ensured that representation of photographers, tv, radio and print Poolers are all in the room. We are continuing to negotiate aspects of this historic summit and will always work to make sure the U.S. media has as much access as possible.’

For that event, the two men were seated at a round table with a floral centerpiece. Their meal had not yet been served.

Once again, Trump talked up their bond.

‘Our relationship is a very special relationship,’ the president said.

After Kim spoke in Korean, a translator said: ‘They have exchanged very interesting dialogue with each other.’

That prompted a joke from Trump. ‘If you could have heard that dialogue. What you would pay for that dialogue … It was good.’

Then Trump stepped in again. ‘We’re going to have a very busy day tomorrow and we’ll probably have a pretty quick dinner.’

‘And a lot of things are going to be solved I hope. It’ll lead to really a wonderful situation long term. And our relationship is a very special relationship,’ the president said.

Earlier Trump said: ‘It’s great to be with you. We had a very successful first summit. I felt it was very successful. Some people would like to see it go quicker. I’m satisfied, you’re satisfied. We want to be happy with what we’re doing.’

Complimenting their host country, Trump said: ‘It’s an honor to be with Chairman Kim. It’s an honor to be together in really a country, Vietnam, where they’ve really rolled red carpet. And they’re very proud to have us.’

Minutes earlier, as they first met, the two men engaged in brief remarks, then looked ahead toward press photographers with serious expressions on their faces. Eventually they smiled.

Trump and Kim dinedalong with top aides. Trump said the meal would be a ‘pretty quick dinner’

Trump review the guard of honor during a meeting with Vietnamese President Nguyen Phu Trong ahead of the US-North Korea summit in Hanoi

President Donald Trump waves a Vietnam flag as he meets with Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc, waving an American flag

DOWN TO BUSINESS: Trump touted a deal for Vietnam to purchase planes. The U.S. trade deficit with the nation has grown by $5 billion since Trump visited two years ago

‘Thank you very much,’ Trump told reporters.

Trump began his Hanoi stay by meeting with Nguyen Phu Trong, the president of Vietnam, lavishing praise upon Vietnam for its ‘thriving’ economy and holding out the local economy as a model for North Korea to pursue.

He announced a deal to have Vietnamese airlines purchase U.S.-made planes – even as it continues to ship billions worth of sneakers and shrimp to U.S. ports. Other agreements would bring the total value of the agreements to $21 billion, according to an administration official.

Trump also called the relationship between the U.S. and Vietnam an ‘example’ of what can become of North Korea if it gives up its nuclear weapons. Trump also posed in front of a statue of the nation’s revolutionary founder Ho Chi Min.

Later, Trump smiled and held a Vietnamese flag as he met with the country’s prime minister, Nguyen Xuan Phuc, and inked a series of agreements.

The president also attacked his predecessor for failing to solve the North Korea problem, which has bedeviled U.S. policymakers for decades

Per capita income in Vietnam is nearly double that in North Korea, $2,400 compared to $1,300, achieving 7 per cent growth and with robust foreign investment and growing trade with the U.S.

South Korea is much farther along the development path, with per capita income of $26,000.

The president is relying on his brand of personal diplomacy to try to score a breakthrough here with Kim, after failing to see progress on denuclearization after a vague letter reached after the Singapore summit.

He has previously said they fell ‘in love’ at their Singapore summit, and has repeatedly stressed that the hermetic regime could become wildly successful if it modernizes and relinquishes its nuclear weapons.

His bid to establish camaraderie with Kim comes despite dark signals that continue to emerge out of the closed society he governs.

Kim forced his uncle to watch colleagues get blown apart with anti-aircraft guns before his own death, according to a defector.

Kang Cheol-Hwan said he was told by eye witnesses that two men who worked with Kim’s uncle, Jang Song-thaek, were killed by firing squad.

The two men were brought in front of a barrage of eight anti-aircraft guns and had lumps of iron stuffed into their mouths before their deaths.

No deal, no problem at Trump-Kim summit: analysts

President Trump left the Hanoi summit early, but analysts say the talks with Kim Jung Il were not necessarily a failure

Donald Trump summoned the world’s media to Hanoi for a meeting with Kim Jong Un, travelled the long way around the world to get there, and dangled an “AWESOME” future before the North Korean leader. And they did not agree anything.

That may not be such a bad thing, analysts say — but reaching a deal will take a long time.

Trump and Kim’s Singapore summit — the first-ever encounter between the leaders of two countries on opposite sides of the technically still unfinished Korean War — made global headlines last year.

The agreement they signed, though, was short on specifics, with Kim committing only to a vague promise to “work toward complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula”.

Subsequent progress stalled with the two sides disagreeing over what that means, and ahead of the Hanoi meeting analysts expected them to put meat on the bones of the text.

In the event, there was more bonhomie in the Vietnamese capital — a venue chosen partly to symbolise the possibility of a good post-war relationship with the US — but even less in the way of tangible outcomes, with no communique emerging from the summit.

Trump told reporters Kim wanted all sanctions imposed on the North over its weapons programmes lifted before it made any further moves over its Yongbyon nuclear plant and other covert sites, and he had decided to walk away.

“I’d much rather do it right than do it fast,”he added.

At a surprise late-night briefing North Korea’s foreign minister insisted that Pyongyang had only wanted partial sanctions relief in exchange for Yongbyon’s closure, and that its position was “invariable”.

The optics of the stand-off looked poor. But analysts pointed to the meeting as part of a long process, and potentially a necessary one.

“These talks were not a failure,” said David Kim of the Stimson Center.

“Think of the Trump-Kim relationship like a Korean drama,” he went on. “We are just beginning to watch the long love story unfold.”

It would be filled with “excitement, disappointment and utter heartache”, but “the bond between Kim and Trump will remain steadfast to the end.

“As long as both ‘lovers’ remain committed to their relationship, we can expect more positive outcomes in the future.”

– Third date? –

Trump has previously said he and Kim “fell in love” over an exchange of letters, and while no third summit with Kim had been agreed, the White House said working-level talks would continue.

But in his New Year speech, a key political set-piece in the North, Kim said Pyongyang would seek a “new way” to defend its interests if Washington did not offer concessions in return for the steps it has already taken — a missile and nuclear test moratorium, and what it says is the destruction of facilities it no longer needs.

That raises the prospect of Kim turning to neighbour and ally China for succour.

+3

Trump told reporters Kim wanted all sanctions imposed on the North lifted, and he had decided to walk away

In and before Hanoi, Trump repeatedly said the North could become an “economic powerhouse” if it gave up its weapons.

The two discussed liaison offices — a vital initial step in normalising relations — and Ankit Panda of the Federation of American Scientists said there were “multiple credible reports an end-of-war declaration was on the table.”

But those were “never the ‘corresponding measures’ North Korea sought”, he added.

Pyongyang will once again have been able to portray itself as Washington’s equal, and Kim as Trump’s — the state-run Rodong Sinmun newspaper carried a front-page picture Thursday that showed the US president appearing to bow slightly as the pair shook hands.

Former CIA analyst Soo Kim noted that Trump had insisted several times he was in no rush to complete a deal and that with the North not yet prepared to take the steps Washington wanted, the US president “so far looks at ease with this decision”.

But, she told AFP: “This outcome is likely not what the Kim regime had banked on. So it remains to be seen whether after the rug has been pulled from underneath, North Korea will bite again at another opportunity.”

– Waning Moon –

The no-result from Hanoi leaves South Korean President Moon Jae-in — who seized on last year’s Winter Olympics in his country to broker talks between Pyongyang and Washington — in a bind.

Moon had intended to unveil an inter-Korean economic co-operation plan on Friday, said former CIA staffer Kim, the 100th anniversary of a movement against Japanese colonial rule — one issue on which North and South Koreans are in total agreement.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in has been left in a difficult position by the no-result in Hanoi

Now suggestions of a Kim Jong Un trip to Seoul are likely to go on the back burner, and she said it “remained to be seen” whether Moon would be able to pursue his inter-Korean rapprochement so quickly.

Christopher Green, senior advisor at International Crisis Group, said the outcome was unexpected, “but I don’t think it’s a disaster and it doesn’t end the dialogue process”.

“There will have to be some re-booting and I would expect after a period of relative quiet that lower level talks will begin again,” he added.

But while Trump has his eye on next year’s US presidential election — and is said to want a Nobel Peace Prize — Kim is the third generation of his family to rule the North and undoubtedly expects to remain in power for decades.

And Ri said the North’s stance would “never” change in any future negotiations.

“These talks will take a long time and will far outlive this presidency,” said David Kim.

http://www.crs.gov | 7-5700
Updated January 29, 2019
North Korea’s Nuclear and Ballistic Missile Programs
OverviewNorth Korea has made rapid advancements in its nuclearweapons and ballistic missile programs. Since Kim Jong-uncame to power in 2012, North Korea has conducted over 80ballistic missile test launches. In 2016, North Koreaconducted two nuclear weapons tests and 26 ballisticmissile flight tests on a variety of platforms. In 2017, NorthKorea test launched 18 ballistic missiles (with five failures),including two launches in July and another in Novemberthat many ascribe as ICBM tests (intercontinental ballisticmissiles). It last conducted a nuclear test in September2017. The North Korean leader pledged to work toward“complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” in theU.S.-DPRK Singapore Summit statement. In its 2019
assessment to Congress, the DNI said that “North Korea is
unlikely to give up all of its nuclear weapons and
production capabilities, even as it seeks to negotiate partial
denuclearization steps to obtain key US and international
concessions.”
Despite the absence of any missile launch activity or
nuclear tests in 2018, previous tests and official North
Korean statements suggest that North Korea is striving to
build a credible regional nuclear warfighting capability that
might evade regional ballistic missile defenses. Such an
approach likely reinforces their deterrent and coercive
diplomacy strategy—lending more credibility as it
demonstrates capability—but it also raises serious questions
about crisis stability and escalation control. Congress may
further examine these advances’ possible effects on U.S.
policy.
Nuclear Tests
On September 3, 2017, North Korea announced that it had
tested a hydrogen bomb (or two-stage thermonuclear
warhead) that it said it was perfecting for delivery on an
intercontinental ballistic missile. North Korea has tested a
nuclear explosive device five other times since 2006.
According to U.S. and international estimates, each test
produced underground blasts that were progressively higher
in magnitude and estimated yield. According to the North
Korean test announcement, the country had achieved
“perfect success in the test of a hydrogen bomb for
intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).” In early 2018,
North Korea announced that it had achieved its goals and
would no longer conduct nuclear tests and would close
down its test site. It dynamited the entrances to two test
tunnels in May prior to the Trump-Kim summit. Kim Jong
Un told Secretary Pompeo in an October meeting that he
“invited inspectors to visit the Punggye Ri nuclear test site
to confirm that it has been irreversibly dismantled.” Such an
inspection has not yet occurred.
Nuclear Material Production
North Korea continues to produce fissile material
(plutonium and highly enriched uranium) for weapons.
North Korea restarted its plutonium production facilities
after it withdrew from a nuclear agreement in 2009, and is
operating at least one centrifuge enrichment plant at its
Yongbyon nuclear complex. During the September 2018
North-South Pyongyang Summit, the North stated its
willingness to “permanently disable” the Yongbyon
facilities if the United States took “corresponding
measures.” U.S. officials have said that it is likely other
clandestine enrichment facilities exist. Open-source
reports, citing U.S. government sources, in July 2018
identified one such site at Kangson.
There is no public U.S. Intelligence Community (IC)
consensus of North Korea’s fissile material stockpiles.
News reports in August 2017 said that one component of
the IC, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), had
estimated a stockpile of up to 60 nuclear warheads.
Nongovernmental open source estimates are based on
material production activities at the Yongbyon site as well
as past stockpile estimates. Some experts believe that North
Korea could have potentially produced enough material for
13-21 nuclear weapons, and that North Korea could now
potentially produce enough nuclear material for an
additional 7 warheads per year.
Doctrine
North Korean statements, taken at face value, appear to
describe North Korea’s nuclear arsenal as a deterrent to the
U.S. “nuclear war threats.” In his 2017 New Year’s address,
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un stated that the North had
“achieved the status of a nuclear power,” and promised to
continue to “build up our self-defense capability, the pivot
of which is the nuclear forces, and the capability for
preemptive strike … to defend peace and security of our
state.” Kim also said at the 2016 Workers’ Party Congress
that North Korea “will not use a nuclear weapon unless its
sovereignty is encroached upon by an aggressive hostile
force with nukes.” The statement also said that the “nuclear
weapons of the DPRK can be used only by a final order of
the Supreme Commander of the Korean People’s Army
(Kim Jong Un) to repel invasion or attack from a hostile
nuclear weapons state and make retaliatory strikes.”
The U.S. intelligence community has characterized the
purpose of North Korean nuclear weapons as intended for
“deterrence, international prestige, and coercive
diplomacy.” In its 2019 assessment to Congress, the DNI
said that “North Korean leaders view nuclear arms as
critical to regime survival.”
North Korea’s Nuclear and Ballistic Missile Programshttp://www.crs.gov | 7-5700
Warheads and Delivery Systems
According to the U.S. intelligence community, the prime
objective of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program is to
develop a nuclear warhead that is “miniaturized,” or
sufficiently lighter and smaller to be mounted on long-range
ballistic missiles. One of the most acute near-term threats to
other nations may be from the medium-range Nodong
missile, which could reach all of the Korean Peninsula and
some of mainland Japan. Outside the intelligence
community, U.S. officials have articulated conflicting
assessments of North Korea’s ability to produce a nuclear
warhead for its intercontinental-range missiles. The
intelligence community believes that North Korea has an
ICBM capability, but that neither North Korea nor the
United States knows whether that capability will work.
A December 2015 Department of Defense (DOD) report, as
well as the intelligence community’s 2018 worldwide threat
assessment, said that “North Korea is committed to
developing a long-range nuclear-armed missile that is
capable of posing a direct threat to the United States.” The
DOD report outlined two hypothetical ICBMs on which
North Korea could mount a nuclear warhead and deliver to
the continental United States: the KN-08 and the
Taepodong-2, which was the base rocket for the Unha-2
space launch vehicle. North Korea has paraded what are
widely considered mock-ups or engineering models of the
KN-08 and KN-14 ICBMs. In 2016, the intelligence
community assessed that “North Korea has already taken
initial steps toward fielding this [ICBM] system, although
the system has not been flight-tested.” In July 2017, the
DPRK conducted what most have now assessed as two
ICBM tests.
In December 2012, North Korea launched an Unha-3 to
deliver a satellite into space. The DOD noted that although
this space launch vehicle “contributes heavily to North
Korea’s long-range ballistic missile development,” the
country did not test a reentry vehicle (RV), and absent an
effective RV, “North Korea cannot deliver a weapon to
target from an ICBM.” North Korea launched the Unha-3
again in February 2016, placing a satellite into earth orbit.
Some observers assert that the Unha-3 could be used as an
ICBM, but no other country has deployed a space launch
vehicle as a nuclear-armed ICBM or developed an ICBM
from the technology base of a space launch program alone.
Recent static engine tests of a large rocket engine in late
2016 and early 2017 suggest to some progress in their
ICBM program, and to others progress in developing a
larger space launch vehicle.
North Korea has demonstrated limited but growing success
in its medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) program and
its submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) test
program. Moreover, North Korea appears to be making
some progress in moving slowly toward solid rocket motors
for its ballistic missiles. Solid fuel is a chemically more
stable option that also allows for reduced reaction and
reload times. Successful tests of the Pukguksong-2 (KN-15)
solid fuel MRBM in 2017 led North Korea to announce it
would now mass produce those missiles.
Since the June 2018 Singapore Summit, reports have
surfaced showing the dismantlement of a rocket engine test
stand at the Sohae satellite launch complex. Although the
test stand could be rebuilt, some observers see this as a
positive development toward denuclearization while others
have suggested the stand was no longer needed for liquidfuel engines, as North Korea may be opting instead to test
and deploy solid rocket motors for their missiles. There
have also been reports that North Korea may now be
producing liquid-fueled ICBMs at another facility outside
the North Korean capital, but other experts point out
developments there are not yet clear. Other observers note
that closing a test stand would not prevent mass production
of current designs.
Mobile ballistic missiles, which North Korea is developing,
and other measures also reduce U.S. detection abilities.
These things together suggest that their test program may
be more than just for show or to make a political
statement—that it may be intended to increase the
reliability, effectiveness, and survivability of their ballistic
missile force. North Korea has increased ballistic missile
testing in recent years. These tests have demonstrated
growing success and, coupled with increased operational
training exercises, suggest a pattern designed to strengthen
the credibility of North Korea’s regional nuclear deterrent
strategy.
A recent focus in North Korea’s ballistic missile test
program appears to be directed at developing a capability to
defeat or degrade the effectiveness of missile defenses, such
as Patriot, Aegis BMD, and THAAD, all of which are or
will be deployed in the region. Some of the 2016 missile
tests were lofted to much higher altitudes and shorter ranges
than an optimal ballistic trajectory. On reentry, a warhead
from such a launch would come in at a much steeper angle
of attack and at much faster speed to its intended target,
making it potentially more difficult to intercept with missile
defenses. North Korea has demonstrated in 2017 the ability
to launch a salvo attack with more than one missile
launched in relatively short order. This is consistent with a
possible goal of being able to conduct large ballistic missile
attacks with large raid sizes, a capability that could make it
more challenging for a missile defense system to destroy
each incoming warhead. Finally, North Korea’s progress
with SLBMs might suggest an effort to counter land-based
THAAD missile defenses by launching attacks from
positions at sea that are outside the THAAD system’s radar
field of view, but not necessarily outside the capabilities of
Aegis BMD systems deployed in the region.
Taken together, North Korea’s progress in nuclear testing,
its declared standardization of warhead designs and
potential to put those warheads on MRBMs, increased
confidence in the reliability of its short-range missile, and
efforts seemingly designed to degrade regional ballistic
missile defense systems suggest that North Korea may be
building a credible regional nuclear warfighting and ICBM
nuclear deterrent capability.
Mary Beth D. Nikitin, mnikitin@crs.loc.gov, 7-7745
IF10472

Story 3: United States Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Grew At 2.9% in 2018 and Advance Estimate of 2.6 % in the fourth quarter of 2018 — Videos

For the rest of the president’s term, economic forecasters agree, that number will decline.

GDP grew at 2.6% in Q4—Here’s what five market experts are watching now

President Donald Trump’s central claim about his economic policies officially crashed into reality on Thursday.

Throughout the 2016 campaign and since, the president and his party have vowed to kick-start tepid Obama-era economic growth. Specifically, they insisted tax cuts and deregulation would return growth to its post-World War II average of 3 percent — a level, candidate Trump said derisively, that President Barack Obama became “the first president in modern history” never to reach in a single year.

New government data on Thursday morning show that Trump, too, has failed to reach the 3 percent promised land, according to one major metric. The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis measured 2018 growth at 2.9 percent, matching the peak Obama enjoyed in 2015.

By that measure, the economy grew 3.1 percent. But Obama, too, reached 3 percent growth on a four-quarter basis four different times.

Where Obama failed to enjoy 3 percent annual growth was on the BEA’s official annual number. His 2015 peak was 2.9 percent, like Trump’s for 2018. Thursday’s preliminary 2.9 percent figure could later be revised, although economist Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics said the most likely direction would be down.

For the rest of the president’s term, economic forecasters agree, that number will decline.

“2018 will be the high-water mark for growth in the Trump administration,” Zandi predicted. He expects the decade-old economic expansion will shrink to 1.1 percent growth in 2020, with a better-than-even chance of recession.

The Next Recession: Mark Zandi says corporate debt could cause ‘reckoning’ in 2020

For the 21stcentury economy, 2.9 percent represents strong performance in any event. Not since 2005, during George W. Bush’s presidency, has America seen a full-year expansion of 3 percent or more. Moreover, 2018 marked the second consecutive year that growth accelerated by six-tenths of a percentage point from 1.6 percent in Obama’s final year in office.

GOP’s hollow campaign pledge

Economically, that falls short of the upgrade Team Trump pledged. Politically, it demonstrates the hollowness of a core GOP campaign theme.

Trump, with characteristic grandiosity, dismissed that argument and outbid Bush. “We think it could be 5 or even 6” percent, he said.

His economic advisers remained more cautious. But they cast sustained growth of 3 percent or more, driven by new, productivity-boosting business investment, as the floor beneath their strategy for making Americans better off and protecting the federal budget.

Women have returned to the labor force and it’s helping drive wages higher

‘Abracadabra,’ Obama

Growth ticked up in 2017 to 2.2 percent, though that rate fell below what the Congressional Budget Office had forecast before Trump’s election. As the president took steps toward deregulation, Republican allies in Congress called tax cuts critical to achieving their 3 percent goal.

The tax cuts passed in December 2017. And when growth surged to 4.2 percent in the second quarter of 2018, the White House declared victory.

“We’re on track to reach the highest annualized growth in 13 years,” the president assured reporters.

In fact, growth in a single quarter had topped 4.2 percent four different times during the Obama administration. A broad range of analysts had forecast that a deficit-financed tax-cut would stimulate short-term boost beginning in 2018.

Yet even as 3rdquarter growth slowed to 3.4 percent, White House advisers reiterated their confidence. In July, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin called the U.S. “well on the path” for four to five years of sustained 3 percent growth.

In December, top White House economist Kevin Hassett sounded the same note while acknowledging a slowdown in business investment. “We’re definitely going to be at 3 or above 3” for both 2018 and 2019, he told CNBC.

Thursday’s BEA data show otherwise. Growth kept falling in the fourth quarter, to 2.6 percent. The increase in business investment has continued to taper.

Having predicted growth of “substantially over 3 percent,” former National Economic Council director Gary Cohn, has blamed Trump’s trade tariffs for offsetting the boost from the tax cut. But the White House and its allies lacked credible evidence for their growth claim to begin with.

“The 3 percent long-term projection was always a stretch in light of the demographic headwinds,” Harvard’s Greg Mankiw, who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers for President Bush, told CNBC.

Justin Wolfers: Biggest risk to strong U.S. economy is Trump in the White House

That doesn’t mean the White House agenda won’t have long-term benefits. But Republican economist Doug Holtz-Eakin, a former Bush adviser and CBO director, says determining its impact will take years.

“The real question is how much the trend has improved: are we decelerating to 2.5 percent instead of 2.0 percent?” asked Holtz-Eakin. “The test of the Trump administration policies will be their impact on productivity growth, and the data are not yet in.”

Meantime, economists at CBO and the Federal Reserve have cut their forecasts for 2019 growth to 2.3 percent. For the long-term, both project growth below 2 percent.

Correction: This story was revised to correct a summary that should have said the Bureau of Economic Analysis measured 2018 growth at 2.9 percent, matching the peak Obama enjoyed in 2015. It also was updated to reflect other measures of GDP growth.

Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 2.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2018 (table 1), according to the “initial” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased 3.4 percent.

Due to the recent partial government shutdown, this initial report for the fourth quarter and annual GDP for 2018 replaces the release of the “advance” estimate originally scheduled for January 30th and the “second” estimate originally scheduled for February 28th. See the Technical Note for details.

The Bureau emphasized that the fourth-quarter initial estimate released today is based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see “Source Data for the Initial Estimate” on page 3). Updated estimates for the fourth quarter, based on more complete data, will be released on March 28, 2019.

The increase in real GDP in the fourth quarter reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), nonresidential fixed investment, exports, private inventory investment, and federal government spending. Those were partly offset by negative contributions from residential fixed investment, and state and local government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased (table 2).

The deceleration in real GDP growth in the fourth quarter reflected decelerations in private inventory investment, PCE, and federal government spending and a downturn in state and local government spending. These movements were partly offset by an upturn in exports and an acceleration in nonresidential fixed investment. Imports increased less in the fourth quarter than in the third quarter.

Current dollar GDP increased 4.6 percent, or $233.2 billion, in the fourth quarter to a level of $20.89 trillion. In the third quarter, current-dollar GDP increased 4.9 percent, or $246.3 billion (table 1 and table 3).

The price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.6 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 1.8 percent in the third quarter (table 4). The PCE price index increased 1.5 percent, compared with an increase of 1.6 percent. Excluding food and energy prices, the PCE price index increased 1.7 percent, compared with an increase of 1.6 percent.

Personal Income (table 8)

Current-dollar personal income increased $225.1 billion in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of $190.6 billion in the third quarter. The acceleration in personal income reflected an upturn in farm proprietors’ income and accelerations in personal dividend income and personal interest income. Compensation of employees decelerated.

Disposable personal income increased $218.7 billion, or 5.7 percent, in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of $160.9 billion, or 4.2 percent, in the third quarter. Real disposable personal income increased 4.2 percent, compared with an increase of 2.6 percent.

Personal saving was $1.06 trillion in the fourth quarter, compared with $996.0 billion in the third quarter. The personal saving rate — personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income — was 6.7 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with 6.4 percent in the third quarter.

Updates to third quarter GDI

For the third quarter of 2018, the percent change in real GDI was revised from 4.3 percent to 4.6 percent based on newly available tabulations from the BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages program.

The increase in real GDP in 2018 primarily reflected positive contributions from PCE, nonresidential fixed investment, exports, federal government spending, private inventory investment, and state and local government spending that were slightly offset by a small negative contribution from residential fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased (table 2).

The acceleration in real GDP from 2017 to 2018 primarily reflected accelerations in nonresidential fixed investment, private inventory investment, federal government spending, exports, and PCE, and an upturn in state and local government spending that were partly offset by a downturn in residential investment.

Current-dollar GDP increased 5.2 percent, or $1.02 trillion, in 2018 to a level of $20.50 trillion, compared with an increase of 4.2 percent, or $778.2 billion, in 2017 (table 1 and table 3).

During 2018 (measured from the fourth quarter of 2017 to the fourth quarter of 2018), real GDP increased 3.1 percent, compared with an increase of 2.5 percent during 2017. The price index for gross domestic purchases increased 2.1 percent during 2018, compared with an increase of 1.9 percent during 2017.

Source Data for the Initial Estimate

Information on the source data and key assumptions used for unavailable source data in the initial estimate is provided in a Technical Note that is posted with the news release on BEA’s Web site. A detailed “Key Source Data and Assumptions” file is also posted for each release. For information on updates to GDP, see the “Additional Information” section that follows.

Kim Jong Un impersonator deported from Vietnam ahead of summit

Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un in Vietnam ahead of summit meeting

President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un are in place ahead of their second summit on Wednesday to address perhaps the world’s biggest security challenge.

Mr Kim’s pursuit of a nuclear programme that stands on the verge of viably threatening targets around the planet will be central to discussions in Vietnam that will build on last year’s encounter in Singapore.

Mr Trump arrived late on Tuesday in Air Force One after a long flight that included refuelling stops in the UK and Qatar.

He waved from the stairs of the presidential plane, then shook hands with dignitaries and walked along a red carpet to his motorcade.

Mr Kim arrived in Hanoi earlier and spent the day travelling around the Vietnamese capital in his armoured limousine, his squad of bodyguards in tow as he visited the North Korean Embassy, with hundreds of visiting journalists and thousands of local citizens following in his wake.

He took a train through southern China and then travelled to Hanoi by car from a Vietnamese border town.

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

Just arrived in Vietnam. Thank you to all of the people for the great reception in Hanoi. Tremendous crowds, and so much love!

The two leaders are slated to meet over two days, first at dinner on Wednesday followed by meetings on Thursday.

They first met last June in Singapore, a summit that was long on historic pageantry but short in any enforceable agreements for North Korea to give up its nuclear arsenal.

+5

President Donald Trump meets officials on his arrival (Evan Vucci/AP)

Mr Trump has praised Pyongyang for ceasing middle tests and has appeared to ease up on demanding a timeline for disarmament.

Mr Kim is expected to ask for relief from crushing US sanctions.

But before the summit began, Mr Kim took some time to venture out of his locked-down hotel and check out parts of Hanoi, including his nation’s embassy, where a loud cheer went up as he entered the compound.

Soldiers, police and international journalists thronged the streets outside Hanoi’s Melia Hotel where Mr Kim is staying, and hundreds of eager citizens stood behind barricades hoping to see the North Korean leader.

As Vietnamese, North Korean and US flags fluttered in a cold drizzle, dozens of cameras flashed and some citizens screamed and used their mobile phones to capture Mr Kim’s rock-star-like arrival.

A worker helps arrange American and Vietnamese flags (Andrew Harnik/AP)

“I like him,” local resident Van Dang Luu, who works at a nearby bank, said of Mr Kim.

“He is very young and he is very interesting. And he is very powerful,” she said.

“Trump is not young, but I think he is very powerful.”

Vietnam’s authoritarian leaders set up a huge security apparatus to welcome Mr Kim, shutting long stretches of road and locking down swaths of the bustling capital city.

Earlier in the morning, Mr Kim, grinning broadly and waving, stepped off his armoured train at the end of a long ride that started in Pyongyang and wound through China to the Vietnamese border.

+5

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un waves from a car (Minh Hoang/AP)

He shook hands with officials as Vietnamese troops in crisp, white uniforms and black boots stood at attention on a red carpet at the Dong Dang railway station on the China-Vietnam border.

Hours ahead of his border crossing, footage from Japanese TV network TBS showed Mr Kim taking a pre-dawn smoke break at a railway station in China, a woman who appeared to be his sister, Kim Yo Jong, holding a crystal ashtray at the ready.

Although many experts are sceptical Mr Kim will give up the nuclear weapons he likely sees as his best guarantee of continued rule, there was a palpable, carnival-like excitement among many in Hanoi as the final preparations were made for the meeting.

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

Heading over to Vietnam for my meeting with Kim Jong Un. Looking forward to a very productive Summit!

There were also huge traffic jams in the already congested streets.

Vietnam is eager to show off its huge economic and development improvements since the destruction of the Vietnam War, but the country also tolerates no dissent and is able to provide the kind of firm hand not allowed by more democratic potential hosts.

“I really hope to catch a glimpse of Kim Jong Un. He is an interesting man. And he rarely travels anywhere so it would be great to see him here,” said Nguyen Trong Toan, a retired teacher who was waiting by the side of the street on Kim’s expected travel route.

There are high expectations for the Hanoi summit after a vague declaration at the first meeting in June in Singapore that disappointed many.

Mr Trump, via Twitter, has worked to temper those expectations, predicting before leaving for Hanoi a “continuation of the progress” made in Singapore but adding a tantalising nod to “denuclearisation?”

He also said that Mr Kim knows that “without nuclear weapons, his country could fast become one of the great economic powers anywhere in the world”.

North Korea has spent decades, at great political and economic sacrifice, building its nuclear programme, and there is widespread scepticism among experts that it will give away that programme cheaply.

Trump’s Hanoi summit off to rough start even before his arrival

Justin Sink and Margaret Talev, Bloomberg

Published 11:56 am EST, Tuesday, February 26, 2019

President Donald Trump arrived in Hanoi late Tuesday for a second summit with Kim Jong Un that has already shown flashes of disorder, as American journalists were abruptly evicted from a hotel housing the North Korean leader and key details of the meeting remained a mystery.

The White House has set low ambitions for Thursday’s talks, organized in a matter of weeks after Trump announced the summit Feb. 8. The two sides haven’t even agreed on the meaning of denuclearization or the ultimate purpose of the negotiations — and that’s unlikely to be resolved this week.

Before Kim’s arrival in Hanoi Tuesday morning, Vietnam’s foreign ministry announced that the White House media center would have to move from the Melia hotel downtown, where the North Korean leader is staying. The White House offered no explanation for the move, which forced news organizations operating from the hotel to pack up and relocate a few blocks away.

Trump will dine with Kim Wednesday evening after meetings with Vietnamese leaders, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters traveling with the president aboard Air Force One. She didn’t say where the two men would have dinner Wednesday, and the White House also hasn’t said where they will hold their formal summit on Thursday.

Trump will be joined at dinner by his chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, and Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. Kim will also be joined by two aides, Sanders said. She didn’t identify them.

Sanders complained on Fox News last week that American media had manufactured “high expectations” for the summit. Trump has sought to tamp down public expectations as well, telling state governors on Sunday that he has no intention of lifting harsh U.S. sanctions on North Korea and isn’t pushing for a hasty deal with Kim.

Failure to win substantive concessions from Kim risks turning a dramatic moment into a public letdown for the U.S president, who is making his second trip to the other side of the world to try to persuade Kim to give up his nuclear weapons. After agreeing to cease military exercises with South Korea following their first summit without gaining anything substantive from Kim in exchange, Trump’s critics fear the president may again be talked into a U.S. concession.

“This is where the president’s unpredictability, his impulsiveness, his inclination not to prepare for meetings could get us into trouble,” said Victor Cha, the Korea Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, whom the Trump administration considered nominating for ambassador to South Korea.

Talks between Washington and Pyongyang have been deadlocked since the two leaders’ first summit in Singapore last June. Rather than show progress toward denuclearization, North Korea has continued to build warheads and missiles, according to satellite-imagery analysis and leaked American intelligence.

Speculation before the second summit has focused on steps the two countries could take to show warming relations while avoiding the sorer points in their nuclear negotiations. In Hanoi, the government has festooned the city with U.S., Vietnamese and North Korean flags and branded the summit as a “partnership for sustainable peace.”

The likeliest outcomes this time are symbolic. One significant possibility is that Trump and Kim conclude their meetings on Thursday with a declaration that their countries are no longer at war, a nonbinding political statement that won’t officially replace the 1953 Korean War armistice.

Some critics worry that a peace declaration — which would come more than 65 years after the armistice agreement that ended the Korean War – could erode the American justification for stationing about 28,500 troops in neighboring South Korea. That might not be of particular concern to Trump, who has openly questioned the cost of the large U.S. troop presence and recently forced the negotiation of a new cost-sharing agreement with South Korea.

Kim could agree to allow a U.S. diplomatic liaison office in Pyongyang, sought by American officials dating to Bill Clinton’s administration. But the North Korean regime has resisted, figuring the U.S. would use the outpost to expand its intelligence-gathering in the country. This summit may test Kim’s willingness to break from the past.

Patrick Cronin, chairman of the Asia-Pacific security program at the Hudson Institute, a conservative Washington-based think tank, said either a peace declaration or a diplomatic exchange would be useful confidence-building moves. Neither should be met with much concern — especially if Kim also gives ground on issues such as inspections of North Korean nuclear facilities or lockdowns or other controls of fissile material, he said.

Trump has repeatedly indicated he’s eager to help jump-start a post-nuclear North Korean economy. His negotiators might seek human-rights assurances that could eventually pave the way for Western companies subject to U.S. and international laws to enter the country.

The two leaders could also announce the formation of joint survey teams to look for additional remains of American soldiers killed during the Korean War, after an initial repatriation following the Singapore summit.

Senior administration officials said that progress toward any of those goals would constitute success and demonstrate the president’s efforts have been effective. A team of more than a dozen U.S. officials led by Stephen Biegun, Trump’s North Korea envoy, has met twice in recent weeks – first in Pyongyang, and more recently in Hanoi – with North Korean counterparts in a bid to craft some sort of agreement for the leaders to announce.

Kim could demonstrate his sincerity by revealing undeclared facilities, disclosing or allowing inspection of his program’s uranium pathways, permitting international inspectors on the ground, or agreeing to allow electronic monitoring or the removal of samples by inspectors. U.S. negotiators are likely to raise their concerns over the proliferation of fissile material and mobile missile launchers.

One senior administration official who requested anonymity to discuss ongoing negotiations speculated that a breakdown in talks between the U.S. and North Korea late last year could have been a signal of internal pressures within the North Korean government. Kim likely faces domestic resistance to any steps toward denuclearization, Cronin said.

There have been a number of North Korean missile tests. North Korea has also fired a number of short-range missiles into the Sea of Japan (East Sea of Korea), in what have been interpreted as political gestures.[1][2][3][4]

As of 30 November 2017, North Korea has carried out 117 tests of strategic missiles since its first such test in 1984.[5] 15 were carried out under the rule of Kim Il-sung and 16 under Kim Jong-il.[6] Under Kim Jong-un, more than 80 tests have been undertaken.[7]

North Korea test-fired an unidentified missile from Pukchang airfield.[30][31] The missile, believed to be a medium-range[32] KN-17 ballistic missile,[30] faltered and broke apart minutes after liftoff.[32][33][34]

May 13, 2017

North Korea test-fired a Hwasong-12[35] missile from a test site in the area of Kusong.[36] The missile, later revealed to be an intermediate range ballistic missile,[37] traveled 30 minutes,[38] reached an altitude of more than 2,111.5 km, and flew a horizontal distance of 789 km (489 miles), before falling into the Sea of Japan.[37] Such a missile would have a range of at least 4,000, reaching Guam, to 6,000 km.[36][35]

May 21, 2017

North Korea test-fired another Pukkuksong-2 medium-range ballistic missile from Pukchang airfield,[39][40] which traveled approximately 500 km (300 miles) before falling into the Sea of Japan.[41] The missile landed about 350 km (217 miles) from North Korea’s east coast.[41]

May 29, 2017

North Korea fired a Short Range Ballistic Missile into the Sea of Japan. It traveled 450 km.[42]

June 8, 2017

North Korea fired several missiles into the Sea of Japan. They are believed to be anti-ship missiles.[43] The South Korean military said the launches show the reclusive regime’s “precise targeting capability.”

June 23, 2017

North Korea tested a new rocket engine that could possibly be fitted to an intercontinental ballistic missile.[44]

July 4, 2017

North Korea tested its first intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) named Hwasong-14 on July 4.[45][46] It launched from the Panghyon Aircraft Factory 8 km southeast of Panghyon Airport.[47] It was aimed straight up at a lofted trajectory and reached more than 2,500 km into space.[48] It landed 37 minutes later,[49] more than 930 km from its launch site,[50] into Japan’s exclusive economic zone.[51] Aiming long, the missile would have traveled 7,000–8,000 km or more, reaching Alaska, Hawaii, and maybe Seattle.[49][52][53][54][55] Its operational range would be farther, bringing a 500 kg payload to targets in most of the contiguous United States 9,700 km away.[56][57][58]

July 28, 2017

The 14th missile test carried out by North Korea in 2017 was another ICBM launched at 23:41 North Korea time (15:41 GMT) from Chagang Province in the north of the country on July 28, 2017. Los Angeles, Denver, Chicago, Boston, and New York appear to be within range.[59] The missile’s reentry vehicle (RV) was seen by people in Japan as it entered the atmosphere and landed near the northernmost Japanese island, Hokkaido.[60][61] Analysis later revealed that the RV broke up on re-entry; further testing would be required.[62] The CIA made an assessment expecting adequate performance of the RV under the different stresses of a shallower trajectory towards the continental US.[63]

August 26, 2017

North Korea test-fired three short-range ballistic missiles from the Kangwon province on August 26. Two travel approximately 250 kilometers in a northeastern direction and one explodes immediately after launch.[64]

North Korea launched a ballistic missile on September 15 from Sunan airfield. It reached a height of 770 km and flew a distance of 3,700 km for 17 minutes over Hokkaido before landing in the Pacific.[67]

November 28, 2017

North Korea launched an ICBM from the vicinity of Pyongsong at 1:30pm EST/3:00am Pyongyang time. The rocket traveled for 50 minutes and reached 2800 miles (4,500 km) in height, both of which were new milestones. The missile flew 600 miles (1,000 km) east into the Sea of Japan; unlike summer launches, the Japanese government did not issue cellphone alerts to warn its citizens. North Korea called it a Hwasong-15 missile. Its potential range appears to be more than 8,000 miles (13,000 km), able to reach Washington and the rest of the continental United States.[68][69] Much about the missile is unknown. The missile might have been fitted with a mock warhead to increase its range, in which case the maximum missile range while carrying a heavy warhead might be shorter than 13,000 km. Based on satellite imagery, some experts believe that North Korea may now be able to fuel missiles horizontally, shortening the delay between when a missile becomes visible to when it can be launched.[68] The rocket is believed to have broken up on re-entry into the atmosphere.[70]

On February 7, 2016, roughly a month after an alleged hydrogen bomb test, North Korea claimed to have put a satellite into low Earth orbit. Japanese Prime MinisterShinzō Abe had warned the North to not launch the rocket, and if it did and the rocket violated Japaneseterritory, it would be shot down. North Korea launched the rocket anyway, claiming the satellite was purely intended for peaceful, scientific purposes. Several nations, including the United States, Japan, and South Korea, have criticized the launch, and despite North Korean claims that the rocket was for peaceful purposes, it has been heavily criticized as an attempt to perform an ICBM test under the guise of a peaceful satellite launch. China also criticized the launch, however urged “the relevant parties” to “refrain from taking actions that may further escalate tensions on the Korean peninsula”.[71]

While some North Korean pronouncements have been treated with skepticism and ridicule, analysts treated the unusual pace of North Korean rocket and nuclear testing in early 2016 quite seriously. Admiral Bill Gortney, head of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, told Congress in March 2016, “It’s the prudent decision on my part to assume that [Kim Jong Un] has the capability to miniaturize a nuclear weapon and put it on an ICBM,” suggesting a major shift from a few years earlier.[72]

North Korea appeared to launch a missile test from a submarine on April 23, 2016; while the missile only traveled 30 km, one U.S. analyst noted that “North Korea’s sub launch capability has gone from a joke to something very serious”.[73] North Korea conducted multiple missile tests in 2016.[74]

On August 29, 2017 United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has condemned the latest North Korea Ballistic Missile Launch and termed it as violation of relevant UN Security Council resolutions, as According to press reports, early Tuesday morning, the North Korea Ballistic Missile travelled some 2,700 kilometers, flying over Japan before crashing into the Pacific Ocean.[75]

On September 3, 2017, North Korea claimed to have successfully tested a thermonuclear bomb, also known as a hydrogen bomb (see 2017 North Korean nuclear test). Corresponding seismic activity similar to an earthquake of magnitude 6.3 was reported by the USGSmaking the blast around 10 times more powerful than previous detonations by the country.[76] Later the bomb yield was estimated to be 250 kilotons, based on further study of the seismic data.[77] The test was reported to be “a perfect success”.[78]

References

Story 2: Corrupt Drug Cartel Supporters Oppose National Emergency To Build Border Barrier — American People Support Trump — Political Elitist Establishment Support Open Borders and Drug Dealers — Trump Promises To Veto Resolution to Block National Emergency — Videos

No factual basis for Trump’s national emergency at the border say ex-national security officials

Pelosi on efforts to block Trump’s national emergency

Trump will ‘100 percent’ veto resolution to block national emergency

Graham on the Dems’ resolution to block Trump’s emergency declaration

Nunes on Pelosi’s push to terminate Trump’s emergency declaration

Former senior national security officials issue declaration on national emergency

Trump will ‘100 percent’ veto resolution to block national emergency

President Trump on Feb. 22 said he would veto a House-introduced resolution to block his national emergency declaration.(Photo: Oliver Contreras/The Washington Post)

A bipartisan group of 58 former senior national security officials issued a statement Monday saying that “there is no factual basis” for President Trump’s proclamation of a national emergency to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

The joint statement, whose signatories include former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former defense secretary Chuck Hagel, comes a day before the House is expected to vote on a resolution to block Trump’s Feb. 15 declaration.

The former officials’ statement, which will be entered into the Congressional Record, is intended to support lawsuits and other actions challenging the national emergency proclamation and to force the administration to set forth the legal and factual basis for it.

“Under no plausible assessment of the evidence is there a national emergency today that entitles the president to tap into funds appropriated for other purposes to build a wall at the southern border,” the group said.

Albright served under President Bill Clinton, and Hagel, a former Republican senator from Nebraska, served under President Barack Obama.

Lawmakers argue over Trump’s national emergency declaration

Republican Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said he supported President Trump’s national emergency declaration to build the wall Feb. 17.(Reuters)

Also signing were Eliot A. Cohen, State Department counselor under President George W. Bush; Thomas R. Pickering, President George H.W. Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations; John F. Kerry, Obama’s second secretary of state; Susan E. Rice, Obama’s national security adviser; Leon E. Panetta, Obama’s CIA director and defense secretary; as well as former intelligence and security officials who served under Republican and Democratic administrations.

Trump’s national emergency declaration followed a 35-day partial government shutdown, which came after Congress did not approve the $5.7 billion he sought to build a wall.

In announcing his declaration, Trump predicted lawsuits and “possibly . . . a bad ruling, and then we’ll get another bad ruling” before winning at the Supreme Court.

Trump’s actions are also drawing criticism from at least two dozen former Republican congressmen, who have signed an open letter urging passage of a joint resolution to terminate the emergency declaration. The letter argues that Trump is circumventing congressional authority.

The former security officials’ 11-page declaration sets out their argument disputing the factual basis for the president’s emergency.

Among other things, they said, illegal border crossings are at nearly 40-year lows. Undetected unlawful entries at the U.S.-Mexico border decreased from 851,000 to nearly 62,000 between 2006 and 2016, they said, citing Department of Homeland Security statistics.

Contrary to the president’s assertion, there is no documented emergency at the southern border related to terrorism or violent crime, they said, citing administration reports and independent think tank analyses.

Similarly, they state that there is no drug trafficking emergency that can be addressed by a wall along the southern border, noting that “the overwhelming majority of opioids” that enter the United States are brought in through legal ports of entry, citing the Justice Department.

They also argue that redirecting money pursuant to the national emergency declaration “will undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy interests.” And, they assert, “a wall is unnecessary to support the use of the armed forces,” as the administration has said.

Some of the same former officials wrote a joint declaration disputing the factual basis for the president’s order shortly after he took office in January 2017 barring entry to foreign nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries. The former officials asserted that the order was not based on a bona fide national security assessment but on “a deliberate political decision to discriminate against a religious minority.”

Their views were filed as a joint declaration and later as a friend-of-the court brief in lawsuits challenging the original order and subsequent revisions, and it was cited by almost every federal judge who enjoined the ban. By the time the challenges reached the Supreme Court, the administration had significantly narrowed the ban, which the high court upheld on a 5-to-4 vote.

With respect to the declared national emergency, plaintiffs have filed two cases in the District of Columbia, two in California and one in Texas.

Former US security officials to oppose emergency declaration

yesterday

A group of former U.S. national security officials is set to release a statement arguing there is no justification for President Donald Trump to use a national emergency declaration to fund a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The statement, which was reviewed by The Associated Press, has 58 signatures from prominent former officials, including former Secretaries of State Madeline Albright and John Kerry, former Defense Secretaries Chuck Hagel and Leon Panetta and former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

The statement is set to be released Monday, a day before the Democratic-controlled House is expected to vote to block Trump from using the declaration. The measure is sure to pass, and the GOP-run Senate may adopt it as well, though Trump has already promised a veto.

“There is no factual basis for the declaration of a national emergency,” says the statement, which argues that border crossings are near a 40-year low and that there is no terrorist emergency at the border.

Trump declared an emergency to obtain wall funding beyond the $1.4 billion Congress approved for border security. The move allows the president to bypass Congress to use money from the Pentagon and other budgets.

Trump’s edict is also being challenged in the federal courts, where a host of Democratic-led states such as California are among those that have sued to overturn Trump’s order.

President Donald Trump has said he wants a 1,000-mile wall on the U.S. border with Mexico. Right now there’s about 650 miles of existing barriers—most of it built during the Bush and Obama administrations. So far during the Trump years, some of those walls or fences have been upgraded, but no barrier extensions have been undertaken.

That will change in late February when a contractor called SLSCOwill begin building six miles of all-new wall in Hidalgo County, Texas, near the McAllen-Reynosa border crossing. SLSCO has two contracts with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build a total of 35 miles of wall this year in Texas and California, for a payment of as much as $432 million. U.S. Customs & Border Protection confirms that this project is a go. Having been funded out of a spending bill passed last March, this new wall won’t be stopped by the government shutdown.

So who is it behind SLSCO so eager to bid on one of the most acrimonious public projects in U.S. history? The company, a.k.a. Sullivan Land Services, was founded in 1995 by John, Billy and Todd Sullivan—brothers from Galveston, Texas. They’re reticent to talk about it, referring most questions to the CBP and Army Corps of Engineers, which will oversee construction. In a brief phone interview, John Sullivan said the brothers’ decision to bid on building the wall had nothing to do with politics.

If it’s not for politics, it must be pretty good business. Yet for all the hassle they go through, the big publicly traded general contractors like Fluor, KBR and Jacobs Engineering tend to generate gross margins of less than 10% and net margins south of 5%. Sullivan says it would be inappropriate to try to estimate how much they would make on a contract that hasn’t been completed yet—some contracts make money, some lose money. If they can squeeze out a 5% margin, the Sullivans could net $20 million or so getting Trump’s wall started—and with a lot of miles yet to be contracted.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Grads of Life BRANDVOICE

Government Leaders Are A Necessary Factor In Cultivating A Digital Workforce

UNICEF USA BRANDVOICE

UNICEF Is Working To Free Child Soldiers Around The World

Civic Nation BRANDVOICE

Celebrating The 2019 School Counselors Of The Year

The Sullivan brothers (Todd is 43, John and Billy, 39) grew up on Galveston Island, sons of Susanne and Gerald Sullivan, who started off as a cattle rancher on the island and built a port business with Texas International Terminals, a dock for tankers and cargo ships, with petroleum storage and a rail spur. They also operate a dredging business and have built artificial reefs for wildlife in the Gulf of Mexico. Their Sullivan Brothers Builders puts up 100 or so townhomes a year around Houston.

Near Santa Teresa, New Mexico, on December 23 as work continued on replacing 20 miles of old fence with new bollards. AFP/GETTY IMAGES

The bigger operations are SLSCO as well as their disaster recovery business DRC Emergency Services, which in recent years has become adept at mustering subcontractors to mobilize hundreds of heavy hauling trucks from across the region to pick up mountains of debris in the wake of hurricanes. Among DRC’s biggest jobs: In 2016, after historic flooding in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, DRC and its subcontractors brought in 300 trucks to haul off 2.5 million cubic yards of debris and haul in $35 million (gross). When Hurricane Harvey deluged Houston in 2017, DRC hauled out 2.8 million cubic yards of debris, and about $40 million. Mark Hunter, an official with the South Carolina Department of Transportation, says of DRC in an email: “they are a great group, very intelligent approach to projects—efficient, productive and committed.” In 2014, according to DRC reports, South Carolina paid the company $44.2 million for storm cleanup.

The brothers have clearly developed a taste for disaster work. SLSCO has rebuilt homes in Haiti, as well as in New York City after Superstorm Sandy (a $290 million contract). They’ve been in Puerto Rico since soon after Hurricane Maria, with a $375 million FEMA contract to rebuild 800 homes and repair 27,000 more. In a contract last year with the commonwealth of Virginia’s office of emergency management, SLSCO grossed $31 million setting up emergency shelters to house 5,000 evacuees that went almost unused. According to Forbes’ tally, the Sullivans have around $1 billion in revenue from government contracts in recent years, from which they could have reasonably gleaned $50 million in profits.

When it comes to that barrier between the U.S. and Mexico, what SLSCO is not going to build are the solid, monolithic slab prototypes that Trump commissioned as a beauty pageant for his vision of a “big, beautiful” wall. The spending bill required that any wall building be done using existing, proven designs. That means installing a concrete base, as high as 15 feet in some flood-prone areas, topped with 18-foot-long steel beams, called “bollards.” Trump prefers the term “steel slats.”

Trump touring his wall prototypes in 2018. None of these are set to be built, at least until the shutdown is over. AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Since passage of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (with support of senators Obama, Clinton, Schumer and Biden), several hundred miles of this kind of fence have been erected. The project also involves the installation of cameras, sensors and building of a patrol road along the levee wall. Since last summer SLSCO has been building this kind of wall in a replacement project near San Diego stretching from the Pacific Ocean 14 miles inland.

Back in Hidalgo County the Catholic Church is suing, aghast that the wall will block off the tiny La Lomita Chapel, built in 1865 by French missionaries. The wall will also go through Bentsen State Park, a ranch on the river formerly owned by the late Texas senator Lloyd Bentsen. And then there’s the National Butterfly Center, a private nature preserve a few miles upriver from McAllen in Mission, Texas. Executive Director Marianna Wright laments that the fence will bisect their 100 acres, cutting off its southern acreage closest to the river. The center filed suit to stop the project last year, but the case is now “in limbo,” Wright says.

The feds have been negotiating with some landowners on compensation for the taking of their land. However, by using eminent domain “quick take” precedents, they can take land before paying for it, or even agreeing on a price. “They are going to seize this land and they are going to build this wall and there’s nothing we can do to stop them,” says Wright, who has been informed by the feds that where the wall crosses the butterfly refuge, SLSCO will be installing a secure door, accessible via numeric keypad. That way butterfly buffs can venture to the other side of the refuge. CBP shouldn’t expect the butterfly center to check their patrons’ papers. Wright says they’ll give the code out to all of their visitors. And if more people come back through the gate than went through it? Jason Montemayor, public affairs liaison with Customs & Border Protection, says that gates built into the fence will be monitored by cameras and sensors, and if there is any suspicious activity the access codes will be changed. Plenty of Republicans find this distasteful; a new bill sponsored by Reprersentative Justin Amash (R.-Ill.) would push back on federal eminent domain abuse.

And what of the butterflies? Turns out that big monarchs can soar over the wall to fulfill their migration instincts, whereas some species like the endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly (euphydryas editha quino) prefer to flit closer to the ground and will not be able to get over the wall, says Wright; “They will evolve separate northern and southern subspecies.” She says the Boobs For Peace group intends to protest topless when the bulldozers arrive. If things get out of hand, there are 4,500 active duty military and national guardsmen deployed along the border through September 2019. Butterflies are low on the priority list. Customs & Border Patrol says that in 2017 its Rio Grande Valley sector apprehended 137,000 illegal aliens, 260,000 pounds of marijuana, and 1,200 pounds of cocaine. “This is sector number 1 for seizures,” says Montemayor, “a focal point of U.S. border control.”

Sullivan had no comment on the fate of the butterflies or the church, referring all questions to the feds. To be sure, SLSCO’s not alone in bidding to build President Trump’s wall. Barnard Construction of Bozeman, Montana, has been building in Arizona, while Texas Sterling Construction, Fisher Sand & Gravel, and Caddell Construction have all built prototypes. Building with the cheaper bollard system (“steel slats”), instead of solid wall, Trump’s entire 1,000 miles would likely be doable for $10 billion—leaving around $500 million in profits for the Sullivans and other opportunistic contractors.

Thousands have been cut off by rising floodwaters as storm Florence batters North Carolina, bringing the death toll to 17.

Officials plan to airlift food and water to thousands holed up in the coastal city of Wilmington, which has been totally cut off from the rest of the state.

So far more than 400 people have been rescued from the area, which has no power and has been described as an island.

Residents have been waiting for hours outside stores and restaurants for basic necessities like water. Police are guarding the doors, only letting in 10 people at a time to avoid rushes and overcrowding.

Residents have been waiting for hours outside stores and restaurants in North Carolina for basic necessities like water. Police are guarding the doors, only letting in 10 people at a time

Thousands have been cut off by rising floodwaters as storm Florence battered North Carolina, bringing the death toll to 17. Pictured: Emerald Isle in NC

People wait in line to buy food and supplies at one of the few places open in Wilmington North Carolina after Hurricane Florence traveled through the area Sunday

Chris Craig and Zach Boucher sit on a bench in the flooded waters edge following Hurricane, now tropical storm Florence September in downtown Wilmington, North Carolina

Officials have warned evacuated residents to stay away amid fears of further flash flooding over the next two days. Pictured: Flooding in South Carolina

A tree rests atop a home on Queens Road West in Charlotte, NC on Sunday as heavy rains and wind continued to batter the US

Marcus Dipaola helps five-year-old Ember Kelly off a rescue boat carrying her sisters and mother from rising flood waters in the aftermath of Hurricane Florence, in Leland, North Carolina

Florence: What is an extra-tropical cyclone?

Florence is expected to weaken on Monday before re-intensifying as it transitions to an extratropical cyclone Tuesday and Wednesday

Extratropical cyclones have cold air at their core, and derive their energy from the release of potential energy when cold and warm air masses interact.

These storms always have one or more fronts connected to them, and can occur over land or ocean.

An extratropical cyclone can have winds as weak as a tropical depression, or as strong as a hurricane.

Officials have warned evacuated residents to stay away amid fears of further flash flooding over the next two days.

Wilmington has a population of 120,000 but it is not clear how many chose not to leave before the storm hit.

‘Our roads are flooded, there is no access into Wilmington…We want you home, but you can’t come yet.’

Hurricane Florence, downgraded to a tropical depression, claimed more lives on Sunday, with at least 17 people confirmed dead.

Florence is expected to weaken on Monday before re-intensifying as it transitions to an extratropical cyclone Tuesday and Wednesday, the US National Hurricane Center said on Monday.

The tropical depression continues to produce widespread heavy rains over parts of North Carolina and north-eastern South Carolina into western Virginia and flash flooding will continue over portions of the western mid-Atlantic region, it said.

Florence is located about 145 miles (230 km) west-northwest of Greensboro, North Carolina packing maximum sustained winds of 30 miles per hour.

Dallas Perdue leaves a Lowe’s Foods store in Wilmington, N.C., after storm Florence traveled through the area Sunday

The Waffle House outside of downtown Wilmington, NC was open on Sunday as thousands became stranded from the rest of the state

An abandoned car’s hazard lights continue to flash as it sits submerged in a rising flood waters during pre-dawn hours after Hurricane Florence struck in Wilmington, North Carolina

A view of a gas station with its roof blown off as Hurricane Florence comes ashore in Wilmington, North Carolina

On Monday, the South Carolina Department of Corrections posted pictures of prisoners preparing sandbags to defend their facilities from flooding

Bryan Stirling, director of the department, chose not to evacuate the inmates from several prisons, with a spokesman saying: ‘In the past, it’s been safer to leave them there.’ Pictured: Sandbanks outside a South Carolina prison

‘Not only are you going to see more impact across North Carolina… but we’re also anticipating you are about to see a lot of damage going through West Virginia, all the way up to Ohio as the system exits out,’ Brock Long of the Federal Emergency Management Agency said Sunday on Fox News.

About 70 miles away from Wilmington, residents near the Lumber River stepped from their homes directly into boats floating in their front yards.

River forecasts showed the scene could be repeated in towns as far as 250 miles inland as waters rise for days.

Radar showed parts of the sprawling storm over six states, with North and South Carolina in the bull’s-eye.

On Monday, the South Carolina Department of Corrections posted pictures of prisoners preparing sandbags to defend their facilities from flooding.

Bryan Stirling, director of the department, chose not to evacuate the inmates from several prisons, with a spokesman saying: ‘In the past, it’s been safer to leave them there.’

Cars try to navigate a flooded road leading to Interstate 40 in Castle Hayne, NC, after damage from Hurricane Florence cut off access to Wilmington

Meanwhile, half way around the world, Typhoon Mangkhut barreled into southern China on Sunday after lashing the Philippines with strong winds and heavy rain that left dozens dead.

More than 2.4 million people were evacuated from China’s southern Guangdong province ahead of the massive typhoon, the strongest to hit the region in nearly two decades.

In North Carolina, fears of what could be the worst flooding in the state’s history led officials to order tens of thousands to evacuate, though it wasn’t clear how many had fled or even could.

President Donald Trump said federal emergency workers, first responders and law enforcement officials were ‘working really hard.’ As the storm ‘begins to finally recede, they will kick into an even higher gear. Very Professional!’ he declared in a tweet.

The storm’s death toll climbed to 17 when authorities said a 3-month-old child was killed when a tree fell on a mobile home in North Carolina. Three people died in weather-related traffic accidents, officials said.

Victor Merlos was overjoyed to find a store open for business in Wilmington since he had about 20 relatives staying at his apartment, which still had power. He spent more than $500 on cereal, eggs, soft drinks and other necessities, plus beer.

‘I have everything I need for my whole family,’ said Merlos. Nearby, a Waffle House restaurant limited breakfast customers to one biscuit and one drink, all take-out, with the price of $2 per item.

Kenneth Campbell had donned waterproof waders intending to check out his home in Lumberton , but he didn’t bother when he saw the Coast Guard and murky waters in his neighborhood.

‘I’m not going to waste my time. I already know,’ he said.

As rivers swelled, state regulators and environmental groups were monitoring the threat from gigantic hog and poultry farms located in low-lying, flood-prone areas.

Victor Merlos loads supplies he bought at a Harris Teeter grocery store, one of the few places open in Wilmington, N.C., after storm Florence traveled through the area Sunday

The floodwaters of McAlpine Creek along Randolph Road in Charlotte, N.C., are seen on Sunday, Sept. 16, 2018

A man walks along the street with his dog as people return to their houses after the passing of Hurricane Florence in New Bern, North Carolina, US September 16, 2018

Motorists drive through floodwaters in Hampstead, N.C. Sunday as Tropical Storm Florence continued to pelt the area with rain and wind

A boat sits in a backyard after the passing of Hurricane Florence in New Bern, North Carolina on Sunday

The industrial-scale farms contain vast pits of animal feces and urine that can pose a significant pollution threat if they are breached or inundated by floodwaters. In past hurricanes, flooding at dozens of farms also left hundreds of thousands of dead hogs, chickens and other decomposing livestock bobbing in floodwaters.

Some stream gauges used to monitor river levels failed when they became submerged, but others showed water levels rising steadily, with forecasts calling for rivers to at or near record levels. The Defense Department said about 13,500 military personnel were assigned to help relief efforts.

Authorities ordered the immediate evacuation of up to 7,500 people living within a mile of a stretch of the Cape Fear River and the Little River, about 100 miles from the North Carolina coast. The evacuation zone included part of the city of Fayetteville, population 200,000.

Near the flooded-out town of New Bern , where about 455 people had to be rescued from the swirling flood waters, water completely surrounded churches, businesses and homes. In the neighboring town of Trenton, downtown streets were turned to creeks full of brown water.

The rain was unrelenting in Cheraw, a town of about 6,000 people in northeastern South Carolina. Streets were flooded and Police Chief Keith Thomas warned people not to drive, but the local food and gas store had customers.

‘As you can tell, they’re not listening to me,’ he said.

On Sunday the death toll from the hurricane-turned-tropical depression climbed to 15 when a 23-year-old man drowned after a pickup truck flipped into a drainage ditch along a flooded road in South Carolina.

Earlier, authorities said two people died from carbon monoxide poisoning after using a generator in their South Carolina home during the storm.

Before and after photos show the floodwater level before on September 14 and after Hurricane Florence in New Bern, North Carolina, on September 16, 2018

Within two days floodwater consumed the base of a home in New Bern, North Carolina. Pictured Friday and then Sunday

Members of the North Carolina Task Force urban search and rescue team wade through a flooded neighborhood looking for residents who stayed behind as Florence continues to dump heavy rain in Fayetteville, North Carolina, Sunday

A member of the US Coast Guard walks down Mill Creek Road checking houses after tropical depression Florence hit Newport North Carolina Saturday

A man wades across a bridge flooded by Hurricane Florence in Pollocksville, North Carolina, Sunday